Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 118

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

→

Archive 125

Category:Italian goalkeepers

Is Category:Italian goalkeepers necessary? I have never seen a similar category. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, no need. We have Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers. GiantSnowman 14:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, now listed at CfD. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Archer

I've created a draft on the player who has just signed for Bury ("Archer II") - not to be confused with the English-born Scottish international of the same name who plays for Millwall ("Archer I"). My concern here is potential disambiguation - the BBC article on Archer II says he is 24, as does his Chester profile, so potential YOB of 1993 (same as Archer I) or 1994. Soccerway says he was born in 1995. If they are both born in 1993, how to disambiuguate - nationality not appropriate given they are both English, so month of birth? GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think so. That's how I've seen it done before, e.g. Paulinho (footballer, born January 1983) and Paulinho (footballer, born August 1983). R96Skinner (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, month is good. Or by position? Like month better... Kante4 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think month is best. Do we know when he was born? If it was a different year it's all academic... GiantSnowman 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_2#Category:2._divisjon_players

Further input welcome at this discussion, the outcome will likely determine whether or not we have 'player in a league' categories for non fully-pro leagues. GiantSnowman 07:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Bacardi2018

This user has quite a passion for updating current and future seasons... Unfortunately his wikicode skills and general Wiki/Footy policies knowledge are severely lacking and he's disrupting more than he's creating. I'm at loss at what to do. -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A week later and I still can't decide if it's only ineptitude or something else, but I know I have seen editors blocked for less. Equineducklings (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup 3rd place,

Are we adding this down as an honour for World Cup 3rd place to the Belgium players? Govvy (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not as they received bronze medals (this appears to have been applied inconsistently for previous tournaments). Not fourth place though.. Nzd (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, looks like Flix added the honour to all the Belgium players, and 4th place to all the England players, not so sure there is an honour for 4th place! Govvy (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Third place yes, fourth place no. You do no get a medal for finishing fourth. Kante4 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Flix has added 4th place honours on the England player articles... Govvy (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You could always invite him here. Kante4 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? He just ignores anything I say anyway!! Even if I (ping)@Flix11:, asking, are you going to resolve issues? Will he? Govvy (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fourth should not be included IMO, the whole point of the game today was to see which of the beaten semi-finalists would come out of the tournament with something. @Flix11: Although in your additions you have sourced the fact of England finishing fourth, I don't see the source verifying that this actually represents an honour. Nzd (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well actually I just followed what happened in the past. In Gary Lineker for instance. As of the source, there is a user who freaks out if there is something unsourced, and he undid all my works. So I followed what source attached, a BBC match report for instance. – Flix11 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you have to courtesy to name users in the future? Don't think you'll get much sympathy here for having unsourced content reverted! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Attendances and Template:Fb a header (and others)

I see there are a lot of websites that give the average attendance of every team in the league but, for using these templates, there must be a total, a high and a low. Is there any possibility to improve these templates giving the options of not using some columns like "Change", "Low" or "High"? Asturkian (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Lists of European Matches

I've seen a few clubs have lists of their European Matches, and I'm just wondering if there's any reason why they all seem to be listed with the Home leg first, as opposed to the chronological order or matches? As an example, here is an extract from CS Fola Esch for last season:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	Home	Away	Aggregate
2017–18	UEFA Europa League	1Q	Milsami Orhei	2–1	1–1	3–2
		2Q	Inter Baku	4–1	0–1	4–2
		3Q	Östersund	1–2	0–1	1–3

The first game against Östersund for Fola was actually at Östersund, so "away". And the home match against Inter Baku was the second leg, so they had to come from behind on Aggregate to win it, rather than relaxing with a 3-goal lead in the bag as it could be interpreted here.

I'm wondering if there's any consensus on this? Could it do with including which match was played first? Or should the tables be re-arranged to show First Leg / Second Leg columns and indicate after the score or some other way if it was home or away?

Thoughts...? --Philk84 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, I feel like "Home" and "Away" should be swapped with "1st Leg" and "2nd Leg", while there could be a (H) or an asterisk (*) next to the result indicating that said game was played at home. Something like this for example:

Season	Competition	Round	Club	1st Leg	2nd Leg	Aggregate
2017–18	UEFA Europa League	1Q	Milsami Orhei	2–1 (H)	1–1	3–2
		2Q	Inter Baku	4–1 (H)	0–1	4–2
		3Q	Östersund	1–2	0–1 (H)	1–3

Or even just highlight the game played at home by making the text bold (just the result).

What do the others think? Nehme1499 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I was also thinking maybe making the current team's score bold could work, as long as there was a note above/below the table to clarify this.

Season	Competition	Round	Club	1st Leg	2nd Leg	Aggregate
2017–18	UEFA Europa League	1Q	Milsami Orhei	2–1	1–1	3–2
		2Q	Inter Baku	4–1	0–1	4–2
		3Q	Östersund	2–1	0–1	1–3

Thoughts? I know it would be a big job as there's a lot of teams with this kind of table... --Philk84 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This in particular seems more difficult. Why not a simple astrix to show the tie was a home fixture? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always wondered why the home leg was always listed first as it can be misleading. Should be listed with the 1st leg first and either an asterisk or (H) to donate the home leg. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

How many people are needed to form a "consensus" about this? I don't want to go changing things if it's not agreed by enough people... I think the following should cover it?

Note: The following table lists the score of Fola Esch first. Fola played matches marked with an asterisk (*) at home.

Season	Competition	Round	Club	1st Leg	2nd Leg	Aggregate
2017–18	UEFA Europa League	1Q	Milsami Orhei	2–1*	1–1	3–2
		2Q	Inter Baku	4–1*	0–1	4–2
		3Q	Östersund	1–2	0–1*	1–3

--Philk84 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent, but with the asterisks seems good. @Omerlaziale: does a lot of work with lists of European matches, maybe he has an opinion. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

support +1 for the asterisks. Crowsus (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I support use of asterisks in this case. RossRSmith (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support use of (H) and (A) per the "Road to the final" sections in recent UEFA Champions League Final articles (see 2018 UEFA Champions League Final#Road to the final). – PeeJay 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• In light of this, support (H) (A). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I support the use of (H) and (A). Nehme1499 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If it's already in place elsewhere to use (H) and (A) after the score, then that would mean there doesn't have to be an explanation for the asterisks and we can have some consistency. Thanks for the link PeeJay2K3. --Philk84 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI/input @ShugSty: and @Jmorrison230582:, I'm aware of GA Euro articles you oversee. Crowsus (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think it is better to list them under Home and Away titles. It makes life easier for people to understand what those teams done in home or in away games in a particular season. But if there will be a change for sure, I will also support the use of (H) and (A). Omerlaziale (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Source question?

Is portsmouth.vitalfootball.co.uk okay to use? Govvy (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, anything on Vital Football should be considered self-published. The about page describes the site as "an independent fans network" and they "encourage their readers to air their views by submitting their own articles for publication". Nzd (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

K, I've been slowly going through Portsmouth F.C. cleaning it up, shall remove those citations if I spot them. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Chinese football transfers winter 2018 et al.

I was just going through fixing some links and came across this page when I realised that the format is actually totally unhelpful for pretty much anyone reading it. If one looks at List of English football transfers summer 2018, the use of the sortable wikitable allows you to sort by the club to which the player went, the club from which he signed, the transfer fee, the date, even alphabetically. This format assumes you're going to be looking for all the transfers of a specific club, which may be the purpose of the article for some people, but it omits info about the transfer date and the fee while including useless information such as the player's squad number (I could take or leave their position, but the squad number is totally pointless). I know there are other articles that follow this standard, but surely it would make sense to adopt the sortable wikitable for all? – PeeJay 11:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Transfers should be arranged by date (not club) and then be sortable to group all players going to/from a certain club together. GiantSnowman 11:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Difference between nickname and shortname in infobox and what constitutes either

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox football club#Nickname, short name and other parameters because it's not clear and initialisms are being used in both locations and I have an editor who is insisting that his team's initials be recognized as its short name (because he sees it on other articles). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Serie A logo

Hi. Could someone with more experience with images please look into adding the logo used at it:Serie A - without the sponsor TIM as they are no longer - to enwiki for Serie A. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done but something is wrong with the file (shows a white background in the infobox, but is transparent on the file page). I'll try and have it fixed shortly. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody please watch Ola Kamara and Gyasi Zardes?

There are IPs that continue to change the information in the infoboxes despite the established precedent of how the years at the team are spent for MLS players or any winter transfer for that matter (i.e. a player that transfers during January 2018 will be shown as last playing for a team in 2017). I've already pushed the 3RR limit and don't want to put any more effort than necessary. Jay eyem (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

They're still at it… :-/ Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP. See WP:3RRNO. GiantSnowman 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Article help: Last-minute goal

I've taken a major axe to the Last-minute goal article. The article is essentially a list of lots of last minute goals scored in various matches, which didn't have any criteria. I've added some to each section for now and cut the list down heavily, but it still contains too many examples in my view. Ultimately, I think the page should contain some examples, but there's a limit to how many there should be. WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:NPOV are important to consider here, also worth noting that a lot of the examples listed fall under WP:CITENEED. What would people suggest for this page? Clyde1998 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest putting the whole article in the bin, quite frankly. I don't see there's any useful non-arbitrary inclusion criteria you could come up with, and an article of this type will inevitably continue to attract people adding any old matches simply because they involve their favourite team or have happened recently. I think the whole concept is very weak as the basis for an encyclopedia article. Jellyman (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still horrendous, though I'm glad you retained the miracle at Bolton ;-) How about merging the opening sentence of last-minute goal to the relevant entry at Glossary of association football terms, adding a couple of refs to match reports that use the term, and redirecting to Glossary of association football terms#L. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd endorse that. I can't see that the existing article adds anything encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I'd also suggest a short bullet list of links to articles involving last minute goals, obviously these would be major finals or otherwise noteworthy games. Crowsus (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

IP users adding categories

Could somebody please undo the edits of two IP editors @2800:810:55E:862F:ECFC:85DF:5A82:32D1: and @2800:810:55E:862F:7C74:92BE:428A:BE05: who have added a load of "of descent" categories to numerous footballer articles, without leaving a reliable source in the respective articles. R96Skinner (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted as unsourced. There are a series of IPs which go around doing this, some have been blocked in the past. GiantSnowman 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. If only they'd add a source! R96Skinner (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A-league

Is this edit [1] necessary? Summary may violate WP:OWNHhkohh (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary per prior consensus and violates WP:ICONDECORATION. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we delete those colour files? GiantSnowman 08:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman No! Files uses in many wikis (not only enwiki) Hhkohh (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if we don't delete them, they definitely shouldn't be used here. MOS:ICON is quite clear about not using icons simply for decoration. User:Aaxelpediaa claims that the colours make the teams more recognisable, but if a reader can't identify the team simply by its name, there are probably bigger issues at play. Those icons are not necessary. – PeeJay 09:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Templates like this should be consistent. If we don't use this in other leagues, we shouldn't here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed from the table. Kante4 (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay for them to remain in the map of the competing teams? The map is intrinsically decorative, but IMO the icons are the very definition of original research. – PeeJay 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed aswell. Kante4 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, i removed the fixture list on the season article. Kante4 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For transparency's sake, I received an email from SuperJew regarding this issue (Not that I'd promote someone else's viewpoint, especially in spite of a ban - Wasn't sure what to do about the email tbh; so I brought it here), who commented this was a chat talk on the Asian task force a while back. These things also appear on articles such as 2005–06 A-League, for the fixture lists (But not the league table - I checked them all). These should probably be removed as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't this be brought up on the A-League talk pages? It's pretty annoying to constantly have to check this page to see if other users (which never edit the pages in question) are making their own rules and then dictating that is the consensus whenever someone who doesn't frequent this page 24/7 brings it up? Christ, this shits me. - J man708 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How exactly are editors here "making their own rules"? It seems to be the exact opposite, the MoS is a style guideline for all Wikipedia articles. Using icons to decorate pages is not a valid reason to ignore these guidelines. A change in consensus would have to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Various

Hi all, I've just initiated a talk page discussion about Santi Cazorla's Villareal "signing" and it would be good to get project input.

Also, as I'm here, I have a few other talk posts that I haven't had responses to. If anyone has anything to add to any of those, that'd be great:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Archives/2018/December#Use of 'Ladies' or 'Women' in club names
• Talk:Mohamed El Shamy (footballer, born 1996)#Birthdate
• Talk:Robert Cornthwaite (footballer)#Position
• Talk:List of Northampton Town F.C. managers#Syd Puddefoot statistics and Talk:List of Galatasaray S.K. managers#Syd Puddefoot statistics

I've also just responded to a query about Didier Deschamps' height if anyone wants to get involved in that one..

Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Help english improvements

Hi everyone, I've just created the Serie A most expensive transfer progression article. My English need to improve, so anyone can fix some errors? Thanks. --QuQuqquu99 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

listing some expensive signing by a Serie A club is ok, but listing the succession without citation is an original research, who knows did you missed one or two entries in the succession or not? You may dig out some article in http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/sitesearch/ArchivioStoricoPay.html as citation. For the last decade transfer, as the transfer fee were well reported it seem fine to have the succession of the record holder without citation. Matthew_hk tc 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sent off

Can you tell the difference between   and   just by eyeballing the icons? It took me a while to realise the second one had two thin yellow-cards and not one thick one. I was then able to work out that the second one must mean two yellow cards, with the second one resulting in a red. Finally, by a process of elimination, I deduced that the first icon must mean a yellow followed by a straight red. I would certainly not have arrived at any such conclusion had I not seen the two icons beside each other. I suggested at Template talk:Sent off#0, 1, 2 ? that the meaning of both icons would be more obvious if we used one of the of commons:Category:Yellow-red card icons for the second-yellow case; e.g. for second-yellow vs (or even ) for yellow+straight-red. The tooltips should also be changed. jnestorius^(talk) 21:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that   (one yellow shown) was two yellow cards, leading to a red card, while a yellow card followed by a straight red card would be shown as (separate cards). I know the template is used by a number of sports, but I can't think of a reason why they'd be a need for   (two yellows shown), except if Graham Poll is refereeing, if this system was used. It appears by looking at a few articles, that the two yellow cards show system is used for two yellows leading to a red - having the dual-colour card would certainly be preferable and save a lot of time changing every article to conform with a different system. Clyde1998 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Scott Brown (footballer, born June 1985)

This article subject is something I don't understand when it comes to a specific type of vandalism. Many of the edits within the recent past includes some sort of 'lego' in it such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and most recently 5. I don't see how many people are doing this to just this article, however I have found something which may be where it's from. Iggy (Swan) 21:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be a single person, who's now banned. The Lego eating references are meant to imply that Brown is a "person of limited intellect"; it's commonly used by "people of limited intellect" to refer to him. Clyde1998 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Haha yeah that's a good summation of the situation, although there are many people in that category who follow Scottish football, dislike Brown and have a device with Internet access, so I'd be surprised if it is only the work of one person. Haven't compared their IPs tho. Conversely, see "Lee Wallace is a grass", yawn. Crowsus (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Portsmouth F.C. second kit

Is anyone any good at kit changes, maybe they can sort out the second kit to match the new released away kit, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks you, Govvy (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: O well, I liked your edit Chris, made sense to me, but that IP just reverted it a number of times and his version doesn't make sense to me. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth Tournament

Nike Premier Cup is a youth tournament held in India for U15 category. I would have put speedy on it, but not sure if passes the burden of speedy. Will appreciate editors' input here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Nike Premier Cup Coderzombie (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

UCL

Is this edit necessary [2]? I do not find this competition so I think it should remove Hhkohh (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I've reverted per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Redlinks should not be added to the 'See also' section. Nzd (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Errant table code

Noticed a bit of an oddity at 2015–16 West Ham United F.C. season#Coaching staff where it looks like some table close code is showing up in the article. I've failed to fix it myself, any ideas? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Kante4 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You da man! Cheers, Nzd (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of national association logo on national team articles

User:Fma12 recently removed all but two of the Fair Use rationales from File:Football Association of Wales logo.svg and deleted the image from the articles about the Wales youth and women's teams. I've restored them for now, but I'm wondering if he has any actual policy to support this. That is the logo used by all of the Wales national teams, not just the men's team or the Football Association of Wales itself; the logo isn't used more than once per page; and it's not used on any unnecessary pages (i.e. not decoratively on the Champions League pages to represent TNS etc). I understand that WP:NFCC needs to be fairly strict, but it seems like overkill to delete the logo almost entirely. – PeeJay 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As User:PeeJay2K3 stated, I removed the Wales Assoc badge from minor teams (u21, u17) in accordance with previous discussions about the use of non-free logos on national teams (such this about Argentine Association logo). This criteria has been used not only football but rugby, basketball or even volleyball teams.

WP:NFCC#UUI n°17 says that logos for parent entities should not be used in child entity articles. The Wales Association logo appears in eight articles (which I consider excessive) while other NFCC images such as Brazilian CBF logo were only allowed to be displayed on the CBF article (the same with Argentine FA or other similar badges that appear on one or two articles at most). Moreover, association badges were removed from most of all youth national teams articles (p.e. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc) due to NFCC criteria. I never had in mind to remove logos from all the articles but to keep them only on senior national teams (and, of course, their respective associations). – Fma12 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The rule is unambiguous. The image should only be used on the association page unless the rule is changed. This discussion points out that it was added in 2014 but without any clear consensus for adding it. The use on national team pages seems likely to comply with fair use under US copyright law so the current rule is probably stricter than necessary. It is clear, though.   Jts1882 | talk  08:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Previus discussions about similar cases, supported what I stated above (more precisely, Croatian FA and FC Barcelona logos). And there another ones in current discussions. – Fma12 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Japan by club

Excuse me, there are categories of clubs not playing in the national league in Category:Footballers in Japan by club. For example, Category:FC TIAMO Hirakata players, FC TIAMO Hirakata played only Kansai Soccer League (Kansai region league). Category:J.FC Miyazaki players, J.FC Miyazaki played only Kyushu Soccer League (Kyushu region league). These clubs have never played in the national league. I don't think that we need these clubs categories. We need these categories? --Gonta-Kun (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with these categories. Number 57 15:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

fb si footer

Hi,

I've noticed that {{fb si footer}} has a bit of code where it says that "The squad could change until the summer transfer end on 31 August 2018." It doesn't seem like this date is changeable. I think this should be removed because, to give two examples, both 2018–19 Manchester City F.C. season and 2018–19 S.L. Benfica season have the line displayed, even though the English transfer window closes on 9 August and the Portuguese window on September 21. Having the fixed date of 31 August seems a bit inflexible. I think it should be removed. What does everyone else think? OZOO (t) (c) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bit irrelevant to me. Strictly speaking, can't the squads still be changed after the summer transfer window is shut? What about mutual termination, or say a firing from a "gross misconduct" charge, etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The squad is likely to change until the end of the summer transfer window on DATE" and make date an optional parameter. Likely dosn't preclude no later changes.   Jts1882 | talk  10:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Squad numbers can't be changed once they have been registered with the FA for the season, you can only add unassigned numbers during the season. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that still considered a change? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Goalkeeper jerseys

What is the policy on goalkeeper jerseys? In my opinion they are more notable than the 3rd choice kit. The main goalkeeper jersey is usually worn by a club more often than the 3rd choice kit. Mobile mundo (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not notable or worth mentioning at all IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by you guys saying goalkeeper jerseys aren't notable, as Kit (association football) covers the topic of a goalkeeper jersey anyway, so it kind of makes it a noted subject. @Mobile mundo: You never specified where or how you wanted to note the goalkeeper jersey. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why should the goalkeeper kit be displayed anywhere? GiantSnowman 11:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The kit article only mentions goalie shirts in passing (clarifying that they need to be different to the other players) and that doesn't make individual goalie shirts notable. I don't think there is any encyclopedic value in a club article detailing the club goalie shirt (which I presume is what is being suggested). Nobody ever identifies a club by the colours worn by the goalie.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking in the infobox of a clubs article. I saw it in a club season article a while ago (I forget which one but it was an English Premier League club). (Mobile mundo (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Definitely not in the infobox. The infobox should sum up the basic key info about the club and the design of the goalie shirt is definitely not part of that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Really don't need it in the infobox, already got three kits to identify the squad, I am bemused by the response that say a goalie shirt is not notable when clearly it's been noted several times in prose on the Kit article!! Kit (association football) could do with a good photo showing the difference on the pitch between the goalkeeper and out-field player. Govvy (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The concept of the goalie wearing a different shirt to the rest of the team is significant, but that doesn't mean that the design dreamed up for a specific club is a notable aspect of that club (says someone old enough to remember when all goalies just wore a plain green shirt :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 A-League

I removed the listed fixtures at 2018–19 A-League (every game for the whole season) and was reverted twice by IP('s). What to do? I remember that there should be not a section with all fixtures/results. Kante4 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just removed them again, and added a comment to the IP Editor's Talk page (at his most recent IP address). I also added a comment to the article's Talk page. Let's see if it works. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kante4 (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd that the IP uses mdy format when the A-League publishes the schedule in dmy format, as well as the entire article and WP default being dmy. Some sort of pro-US cyber-activist? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit of a surprise. Dunno if he did all the conversions manually. I wouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If it becomes a problem - page protect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Blyth AFC and Blyth Town FC

Are these two teams the same? Blyth A.F.C. and Blyth Town F.C.. Blyth AFC website seems to suggest that Blyth Town changed names. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what the FCHD says too, so I've moved the original article over the top of the new one. Number 57 17:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff of London Charity Shield

Hello, I just noticed that Matt294069 has gone through deleting a fair chunk of the Sheriff of London Charity Shield season articles and redirecting them to the main article about the competition. So, while the page 1898 Sheriff of London Charity Shield still exists, the article for the following season, 1899 Sheriff of London Charity Shield now redirects to the competition itself. I might be interpreting it wrong, but the discussion on Talk:Sheriff of London Charity Shield doesn't seem to come to a consensus about deleting the articles, and instead mentions that they should be improved in future. Can anyone here clarify what's going on - should each season be deleted, or should they be re-instated? Cheers, --Philk84 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There was really nothing on those stub articles, so redirect seems fine to me. Govvy (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just mention it because some articles that have the whole match report and/or a fair amount of detail are still in wikipedia, and others are removed - I would have expected either remove all, or improve all... But I guess they've been stub articles for a while and no one has gone to flesh them out in time? --Philk84 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

team kits in infoboxes

There seems to be an obsession to remove team kits from infoboxes. Users like User:Flix11 have gone through articles and removed team kits. The problem is the fact that clubs will still use these kits in friendlies and summer tournaments, or the season right up until the next one is released. So in essence they are removing information for any neutral reader to help that reader identify the team when they watch them. This is very disruptive and I am finding it annoying now that I have reverted a few times. I really wanted to point out this problem for others to understand and not to remove kits from infoboxes, thanks. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but the old kit should stay up until someone creates a graphic for the new one. Or if it is unbearable to look at an outdated kit graphic (the horror), it should be replaced with the generic team colours in the interim, so at least there's something there. Crowsus (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have always thought that the infobox would be better served with generic kit colours. The obsession with presenting an exact version of this season's kit has always been something of a "jfgi" situation where dozens of photos would be presented. Historical changes could then be dealt with in a kit section using actual images rather than amateurly rendered approximations.

Until such time, unless the kit is actively wrong it should remain as the last reliably sourced content. Koncorde (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, I prefer the generic style. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Not doing that again. – Flix11 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, leave it there until the new ones are released. GiantSnowman 10:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The kits depicted in the infobox should be fairly generic anyway, and shouldn't need updating unless there is a significant change to the design (that's how we always used to do it anyway.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jasonakagary88 Doesn't seem to think there is any importance to the 3rd kit either, he is just removing it from Colchester United F.C., I tried to restore it twice, he seems to think the 3rd kit will no longer be used during summer friendlies, who knows, it's should be there for this reason. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

But they don't have a third kit this season, according to this... GiantSnowman 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet, they played in a completely different 3rd kit on the 10 July, 3rd kit. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That kit appears to be their away kit from last season - which may be used as their third kit this season? Clyde1998 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, all I know is a club is a football league club is suppose to have a home kit, an away kit and a clash kit and people are removing kits from infoboxes, yet clubs are still using these kits in friendlies and summer tournaments, I don't think kits should be removed from the infobox, just updated when a new kit is released. Govvy (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you had considered looking at the edit history, I had updated the kits to their current designs - a third kit has not yet been announced and will duly be added to WP if and when it is revealed. Until then it should remain as per the official release. Friendly games were played earlier in the season using last seasons kit correct, but photographs from newspaper articles are not a reliable source. Those images were in fact from a League Two game last season. Jasonakagary88 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What a club does or does not wear in a pre-season friendly is not enough to decide it's an official kit...let's wait for a proper announcement. GiantSnowman 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jasonakagary88: Are you saying that report which is on the Colchester season page is unreliable source? Govvy (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-using an old kit for a pre-season friendly does not make that kit an official one for the upcoming season. GiantSnowman 08:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Kit history" pages

I came across following pages. Personally, I don't think they are notable pages.

• AFC Ajax kit history
• Al Ahly SC kit history
• Club América kit history
• Arsenal F.C. kit history
• FC Barcelona kit history
• FC Bayern Munich kit history
• Beijing Guoan F.C. kit history
• Bengaluru FC kit history
• LA Galaxy kit history
• Real Madrid C.F. kit history
• Olympique de Marseille kit history
• Melbourne Victory FC kit history
• FC Spartak Moscow kit history

Thoughts? Coderzombie (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Just post to PROD or AfD. Hhkohh (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not notable per WP:NOTGALLERY and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits. Of course, if they meet WP:GNG they would be. GiantSnowman 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, these articles are not notable and violate WP:NOTGALLERY. Much of the information seems to have been copied from the main club articles (without proper attribution, unsurprisingly). There have also been articles created for national teams, such as France national football team kit history, Germany national football team kit history, Netherlands national football team kit history, etc. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not impressed really, but then Footwiks seems notorious in copying content from football articles and starting new pages when they aren't really needed, I mean, he copied all the stadium/venue content out of every World Cup article and dumped all the copied content straight into FIFA World Cup stadiums and everyone wants to keep that article, which I just don't get. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that they're not notable. Most of those teams would have a section on their team page that would discuss their kit history and certain kit images may be beneficial in these sections, such their first kit, kits used in major cup finals or general colours worn in different periods of time, but certainly not a gallery of every kit they've used. I added a list of kits Scotland have used in major championships to the Scotland national team page a week ago and even that's probably pushing it a bit far given that most of them follow the same basic design. Clyde1998 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems a pointless collection. There is nothing fundamentally notable about changing football kits through history without the context of the club itself. Notable changes to badges, kit colours etc, names etc should be included within the main squad, and / or may be mentioned within specific season records (particularly if it is significant, such as the England / Man Utd grey kits, or the Chelsea 'salmon', or the Aston Villa green red and black... ). Koncorde (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde. As anyone who has kids notoriously knows, the changes to kits per season are trivial and piecemeal. Actual history and origins of colours and designs can go on the main club article, along with major deviations (such as Liverpool introducing red shorts to make the players look bigger and more dangerous, a well-documented part of Bill Shankly's revolution [3]) Harambe Walks (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree - we don't need a whole separate article to show that Ajax have basically always worn white shirts with a broad red panel down the middle......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Is somebody going to PROD/AFD these? GiantSnowman 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that content in these articles has been moved out of club articles, e.g. FC Barcelona. If these articles disappear, the content would need to be reinstated first. I have contacted @Footwiks: separately about unattributed content moves. Nzd (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly: Govvy's comment! Footwiks seems notorious in copying content from football articles and starting new pages when they aren't really needed This comment make me very unpleasant! I also respect Govvy's opinion (These articles aren't really need). But I thought that these articles really need in English Wikipedia. Please check out them: List of Olympic venues in football, Italy national football team kit history, Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets, es:Categoría:Uniforme de selecciones de fútbol,

Article of Olympic Football venues already have existed since 2011, Article of Italy national football team kit history already have existed since 2016, Article of Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets already have existed since 2011, Spanish Wikipedia had very detailed kit history articles. I can't find logical reason why English wikipedai should have Only olympic football venue article, Italy national team football kit history article, Baseball team kit history aricle and Only Spanish wikipedia Should have football club and national team kit history articles.

Therefore, I created the FIFA World Cup stadiums and other club and national team kit history articles here. I'm very dissapointed that WikiProject Football users don't assume good faith on my contribution.

Secondly: Football club and national team kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste from each National team and Club article. I created new article frame as belows.

1 Kit sponsorship
1.1 Kit suppliers
1.2 Kit deals
2 Kit evolution
2.1 First kits
2.2 Second kits
2.3 Other combinations

Also, I arrangeed images. For example, I converted football kit template sources from spanish wikipedia and found some old kit template source from past article version. In conclusion, I didn't just copy and paste from uniform section of each national team and football club article.

Thirdly, I respect WikiProject Football users's opinions that kit history is not notable and not important. But In my opinion, Kit history is just as notable and important as records and statistics. Most national team and football club museums had Kit History rooms and There are many independent sites about Kit history on Internet. Like independent article about records and statistics, Independent kit history articles are worth existence in English Wikipedia.

Besides, In most national team and football club articles, Kit images on summary part are updated every season. I don't want to wast these images. In separate article, cut and past every year. We can have good kit history articles easily. I also know that we can edit kit history part at original national team and football club kit article. But Kit history part had many images and this cause long loading time when the open the page.

Please keep the independent article and Let's expand together.

If you want to delete, Let's discuss this issue with all users (not just WikiProject Football uses.) There are many people who is interested in football kit history.

Thanks Footwiks (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Football club and national team kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste Compare the introduction to FC Bayern Munich kit history with FC Bayern Munich#Kits. The text was copied word-for-word, and no attribution was given anywhere per WP:COPYWITHIN. Separate articles are not necessary when the majority of the pages violate WP:NOTGALLERY. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

S.A. Julio! You don't understand what I mean. Compare the whole content to FC Bayern Munich kit history with FC Bayern Munich#Kits, FC Bayern Munich#Kits only had section of historic kits. But I added section of First kits, Second Kits, Third Kits. Like thi, Most kit history articles that I made are not just result of Cut and Paste from original kit section of article. Also I noticed the policy of [[WP:COPYWITHIN. I added the attribution notice on FC Bayern Munich kit history now. If the Kit history articles will be exist, I'll add the attribution notice about copied contents. Footwiks (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that violation of WP:NOTGALLERY.

As you know, All football national team and club articles had Kit section including images. (In manual style from WikiProject Football recommed Colours and badge section) But As time goes by, Kit section are expanded. Especially, Football kit images are increased. So Naturally, Kit section become separate article like seprate hitory, records and statistics articles about football team.

Again, Separate articles about football kit history already existed before I created some articles! Check out Italy national football team kit history and Peru national football team kit history. I checked out these articles, Then, I just systematized about football kit history. (Created categories, Created seprate kit history articles about some national teams and club teams)

I have a question. What do you want?'
(A) Delete seperate article and In Kit section of original article, Don't restore whole each kit images as belows.

1927

1930 (Uruguay 1930)

1935

1978 (Argentina 1978)

1982 (España 1982)

(B) Delete seperate article, But restore whole each images to the Kit section of original article.

If do plan B, Original article becoming more and more long article and cause long loading time. Let's assumme ten years later, Club team have 20 more images.

In conclusion, I think that separate articles about kit history are nessary. Footwiks (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Kits history of any sports team in general is important, some clubs or national teams changed kits completely around there history because flag changes for example. I agree with Footwiks and I think that separate articles about kit history are nessary. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the first one on the list (Ajax), the main thing it tells me is that the team's kit has always been a white shirt with a broad red panel down the front. That can be covered by a single sentence in the club's article. We don't need a massive gallery of microscopic variations on the same basic kit. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is, pretty much, absolutely no notability in kit changes. Where there is notability (such as a fundamentally large change like the adoption of a wholly new colour as a result of a change of national flag etc) then this is clearly significant enough to be part of the main article about the nation with the full context. For instance, the History of West Ham United F.C. article displays 3 total kit changes. I could go through and add marginally different kit designs at each era, but I am either reflecting merely the changing at the whim of a shirt manufacturer, or some arbitrary style or design decision taken by whatever is fashionable.

The Real Madrid C.F. kit history is one of the most egregious examples of utter fluff I have ever seen in my life, with minor variations of 40 predominately white kits, of which 35 or so are pretty much universally only white. Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was able to view the Real Madrid shirt history by going through each of their season pages and looking at the same shirt graphics at the bottom of each infobox. Surely that's enough of a visual Kit History as long as they stay in white shirts and white shorts? The Kits section on the Real Madrid page should be more than enough, no? --Philk84 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There should be no seperate article. Merge "some" of the kits in the main/history article. Kante4 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys, this kind of discussion needs to be at AFD. GiantSnowman 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Some cooler heads are needed here. Although certainly those "kit history" articles that only compile image galleries should be deleted, there are also plenty of kit articles that should be kept. A case example is Peru's kit. As can be seen in the history ([4]), the page Peru national football team kit history had been moved by myself to the title Peru national football team kit to reflect that the information would reflect more than just the history. The Peruvian kit is nowadays considered a national emblem of the country. The kit has also significantly changed over time, and there's a history to it that is more relevant for this specialized article than on the main Peru national football team page. I can't argue about other kits because I do not know much about them, but if you're going to make an AfD, I highly encourage to not include in it the Peruvian kit. I also will promptly file a name change request for the article to, as before, indicate that it is about more than just the kit's history. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no indication people aren't being cool, only pointing out the obvious. Someone has a pet project, the pet project is pointless, let's recompose any redeemable content back into the main articles and rid ourselves of duplicated cruft. The Peru one has maybe 3 or 4 paragraphs of value, and needs about 4 or 5 shirts on the main Peru national team article to demonstrate the evolution. Nothing about it indicates a specific significance beyond or above any other national team shirt also being a point of national identity. Koncorde (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a stub/start article. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write GA or FA class articles all the time. That's not a sufficient reason to propose its deletion. As I pointed out before, if you want to propose the deletion of those articles that only feature galleries, then by all means go ahead. All other articles should be deemed for their potential, not blanketed under the same criteria for deletion. The kit evolution is not included in the main article per WP:NOTGALLERY.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

NOTGALLERY is not a reason to not include the content in the main article. It's the reason not to have unaccompanied images in an article. Images and such are for demonstrative purposes, but should be accompanied by relevant text. Having 5 shirts in a row doesn't do anything. Having a "the first shirt was white with a vertical red stripe based upon black black black" with an accompanying image is very much appropriate. Better still, the actual photograph of the different kits being worn enables multiple 'examples' to be dealt with in one stroke with all the accompanying references, sources, and context. Creating a gallery because of NOTGALLERY doesn't seem particularly logical. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Peru have a nice kit, and this has been commented on many times. But the sourcing of that is already in the main (featured) article on the national team they you wrote, so I don't see the need for a separate article repeating that same information, it could be (and already is) just a strong section in the main article. Having said that, at least the Peru kit has some independent coverage, whereas the Italy kit and the club kit articles are all a paragraph or two of information which could easily fit into the main article, followed by vast collections of minor variations to the same outfits. Not needed in my opinion. Crowsus (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how the discussion was heading nowhere, I made a number of updates to the Peru national football team kit history article, which can be seen here ([5]). The point is to prove that a proper kit article can be developed. Unfortunately, right now I don't have much time available to continue expanding it, but plan to do so in a few weeks. Therefore, I again kindly request that, if an AfD will be presented, only articles that lack significant content should be proposed for deletion. I would be very disappointed to see the Peruvian kit's article deleted under the same criteria as an article like Beijing Guoan F.C. kit history, which is little more than an image gallery.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There's been some arguments this information is "not encyclopedic," but there are a number of visual "encyclopedias" or at least data directories on this very topic online, for instance [6] or [7]. Furthermore, it's perfectly fine to have a visual image gallery of these kits, since that is the best way to represent or visualize the data, and have it pass WP:NOTGALLERY as long as there is valid context. An article with only kits would fail WP:NOTGALLERY (and probably WP:GNG.)

The issue at hand here is a single user has created a majority of these articles in the past month or two, often copying information from existing articles, and possibly performing original research. I have absolutely no problem with keeping the kit history data in a history of the club. I have absolutely no problem with keeping an article about kit history if it were a valid split from a larger article, or if multiple sources existed which gets the article as a whole past WP:GNG, and then showing a "gallery" of kits at the end. To me, this data is encyclopedic, or something I may have a niche encyclopedia of if I were interested in the subject. Remember, content doesn't need to be notable: just the articles themselves, but that exposes the problem. The problem at the moment is notability: should these be standalone pages, especially when the content is mostly copied? I think I fall on the side of a lot of users here when I say no, not unless the article is a valid split/passes WP:GNG. Keep it with the history. SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Content doesn't itself need to be notable, but it should be on topic and at least significant. I am sure there is a historical context to football kits. But not whether Madrid are wearing sky blue trim or gold trim this year is not particularly relevant, nor whether Adidas is the principle kit manufacturer or Nike across a century or longer of history.

Even what Marshall has just added to the Peru kit just goes in to reinforce what should be part of the main article. Writing lots of words about something that could be summed up in a few paragraphs is just writing for writings sake to try and justify somethings existince through volume of text alone. Koncorde (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment These seems like a reasonable alternative given that certain users seem adamant to remove this kind of content from the club's main articles or at the least present it as a watered down footnote. This has been going on for a long time now on wiki with different users essentially pushing back and forth. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a source of information. These are highly pertinent pieces of a club's history and identity. Every kit, every season, forms a huge part of this, and to keep deleting such information degrades this site as an encyclopedia. In conclusion, either users should move forward with implementing these separate pages *en-masse* (as Footwiks has began), *OR* they should reinstate *all* of this information on *each* club within their *main article*, en-masse. "But that's just my two-cents"... 77.97.97.103 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, there is absolutely no reason why the level of detail shown on, for example, Real Madrid C.F. kit history needs to be anywhere on Wikipedia. There is no encyclopedic value in showing dozens of endless microscopic variations on an all-white kit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. When looking at WP:TMI, one can easily connect a balanced, properly detailed, and appropriate level of detail to the subject at hand. Its the same thing as having the Leonardo DiCaprio article and then the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with whats been said so far in support of keeping separate articles for kit histories. The main thing I'm seeing is there is simply no space to incorporate them into the main article. In that sense, separate articles about kit history are necessary indeed. To those saying that they are not notable by themselves, I disagree. If they're notable on as section, they should be notable for their own small article. To those touting WP:NOTGALLERY: most of these kit histories have comments that designate their intent, meaning that the are in line with the policy as noted by SportingFlyer. Best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is they are not notable on their own in most cases. What is notable is the club, and by proxy their team colours. The fixation on minor changes to kit layouts based upon the choices of branding or kit designers or sponsors really isn't significant. The overly detailed kit pages contribute nothing and the fact that they are long indicates how little content is worthwhile in keeping. Trim the extraneous fluff and they are comfortably within the main articles. Koncorde (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I partially agree. However, as most structures go for the kit articles, they could not comfortable fit in the main article. It makes a lot more sense to break off into a small, approachable article than have a larger section in the primary article. One can't possibly trim down kit sponsorship, kit suppliers, kit deals, kit evolution, first kits, second kits, etc. into one section on an article. I like how they do it at France national football team#Team image. Everything is bundled under a "team image" section with a "kit and crest" section. When the article links to France national football team kit history, readers get a full coverage on all of the aforementioned content. For example lets say that History of West Ham United F.C. is not notable on its own. Lets say that one can easily condense its content to fit comfortable in the main article, West Ham United F.C.. If we do indeed split it up, a lot more coverage and proper detailing can be undertaken at the former article. To simply trim down the latter article would be a disservice to the information at hand. If we are cognizant of what Wikipedia is not and work around that, operate article shouldn't be a problem. Following the general guidelines of WP:SIZE would also be prudent. I'm sure thats what Footwiks was trying to accomplish. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Equating for an argument the history of a team with whether the piping on sleeves is gold or blue this year is...naff? Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also from what I can see, most of the France article is, firstly, uncited and full of original research, but also full of waffle. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what your first sentence means. But to your second sentence: yes, the France article is pretty bad, but the formatting is good. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It means you are comparing 100+ year factual history of a team with fractional changes of a shirt design based upon changes in fashion, manufacturer and whim of the league or club to make more money. There isn't a lot that can be said that is actually relevant to either the article, or particularly well sourced without resorting to OR and SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that it not just about the jerseys they wear. Its about the history, the crests, the team image, the logos, the symbols, the motivations, the sponsorships; its about a lot of components. All well worthy for their own article. If you can fit in all of the relevant information into one section, go for it. Go to every single national team page and incorporate it back into the main article. I'm willing to bet that there was a reason dozens upon dozens of editors independently decided to split the articles off. LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And all of that is presented in hundreds of articles such as this or this or this or this and so on and so forth and so on. I think you will find your 'dozens and dozens' is probably a few dedicated individuals like Footwiks. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

*Switches into Matthew Mcconaughey voice* Alright, alright, alright. I like what I am seeing, especially at Juventus F.C.#Colours, badge, nicknames and symbols. Will update my bolded comment, good sir. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history was closed as merge and redirect. I have done so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected the rest. Feel free to merge any content you feel is worth saving. GiantSnowman 13:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

split of articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying

Hello. Can some editors comment on User talk:Hhkohh#split of articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying? This discussion is related to our project, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed a few days ago you made changes to how the articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying are split. Personally, I think what you did is very arbitrary and confusing, and does not reflect how the qualifying is structured (for the UEFA overview, see here: [8]). For example, the play-off round is simply the final round of qualifying for the group stage and should not be split alone (while you split the other rounds not split by round but by path). I think the best way is to split into three articles like this:

• 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round
  • 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Champions Path)
  • 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path)

The first article contains the qualifying overview and seeding etc. The second and third articles contains only the information related to the matches themselves. I think this way is the clearest, and I will implement it. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: If you are interested, you can see WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 117#2018-19 UEFA Champions League and Europa League. Also qualifying phase is not included play-off round. You can know why I did this. Maybe I will open a discussion on WT:FOOTY later Hhkohh (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UEFA considers the play-off round as part of the qualifying system, as explained in this article: [9]. Also pre-group stage qualifying statistics always include play-off round. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: Yes. Qualifying system include qualifying phase and play-off round per [10], so qualifying phase exclude play-offs and consensus is split by rounds is better than split by paths per this discussion and we also have 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League play-off round due to template exclude Hhkohh (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I am okay with either split by path or split by round, but what you did was split one round out, and then split the remaining rounds by path. That's why I think this split is not good. I suggest sticking with one method. Also I think it is better to keep the overview article 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, as this is similar to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round, and then put the details of the matches at the sub-articles. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So @Stevie fae Scotland, Sofeshue, and S.A. Julio: (who involved previous discussion), what is your opinion or idea? I am welcomed that you leave your comments or take part in this discussion Hhkohh (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, more than 250 matches may cause template exclude issues Hhkohh (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh, Stevie fae Scotland, Sofeshue, and S.A. Julio: The biggest problem I have with this three-way split is that it is unnatural. Take a look at the access list: [11]. There is no way you can find that UEFA or any football public perceives the qualifying system to be "divided" into these three parts. And take a look at how a sentence was written at an earlier version of the page: [12]

A total of 29 teams are expected to compete in the Champions Path to decide ten of the 42 places in the play-off round of the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League

First, there are 6 more teams starting from the play-off round of the Champions Path, and there is no significant difference between these 29 teams and those 6 teams, so there appears little reason to single out these 29 teams that start from Champions Path Q2 and Q3. Second, the goal of any team playing in qualifying (apart from the immediate goal of advancing to the next round) is to reach the group stage. I don't think Burnley are playing in the UEL Q2 tonight and thinking: "It'd be great if we eventually reach the play-off round!" So while the sentence above is factually correct, it offers almost no use in helping the reader understand the UEL qualifying system, which is complicated as hell. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So should we divide into 5 parts? Hhkohh (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If we split into 5 parts: one for PR, one for Q1, one for Q2, one for Q3 and other for PO and it can makes updating, referencing and browsing much easier. But I think it makes no sense to create 5 pages for qualifying. So I think split by phase first then split by paths is better. And match [13] 13.02. What do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I will automatically accept Chanheigeorge idea if no other editors comment or oppose here Hhkohh (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: Seems much better with the articles more balanced, and the general article provides a useful overview of the format/seeding/round summaries. Also, should the article titles be adjusted (maybe just qualifying?), since the qualifying includes the preliminary round, main rounds, and play-offs? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Hhkohh: What is the maximum number of matches a page "should" contain? Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the change to the three pages makes browsing harder plus we now have two pages which go into detail (albeit different areas) about each path. If your going to split it by path, keep teams, seeding, format, matches on the same page so all the information someone could want to know is in the same place, it seems pointless having just match info, although all together it is very long.

Splitting into five pages might be a good idea though. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification has a page for every round in every confederation – and then sub pages for each individual group. You might want a summary page for qualification as a whole, but it may not be necessary as it would effectively be identical to that section of the main page but with top scorers/other relevant stats added at the bottom. Makes editing easier with the two paths on one page as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you SfS. @Chanheigeorge: Better is under 250 matches. If the match is over 250, it is possible that navbox can not display correctly Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I think split into preliminary round, main rounds, and play-offs is worse than 5 parts because UEFA says the qualifying includes the qualitying and play-offs per [14] and UEFA is mentioned main rounds Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Chanheigeorge: Is there anything to say? If there is no reply in 3 days, we will use Stevie fae Scotland option to do UEL split Hhkohh (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh and S.A. Julio: Overview article plus five sub-articles of the five rounds is okay for me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh and Chanheigeorge: Five articles seems like a bit much, though I'm unsure if there is a better option (other than keeping the current format). Maybe a formal split discussion should be opened on Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, and then invite members of FOOTY to comment? Also, there is a bit of inconsistency with the CL/EL articles, are we listing the 'preliminary round' as part of the qualifying phase (as seen in the 'Round and draw dates' section), or as a separate phase (currently the section 2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Preliminary round is not a subsection of 'qualifying rounds'). I'd say one style should be chosen. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Ok, I will. Note that this discussion is currently under transculation on WT:FOOTY Hhkohh (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think there is much justification for the separate League path and Champions path articles. The same split was executed for the corresponding CL articles and was undone after discussion. The general article on the EL's qualification still exists making the separate articles essentially duplication.Tvx1 18:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Cannot merge into one article, see User:Hhkohh/UEL/1/1 for preview Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Club names in Major League Soccer

A dispute arose regarding the page for the MLS club Atlanta United FC, specifically over the club's full name. This dispute eventually blew up into a full edit war between myself and one other editor. Specifically the dispute is over whether a club's legally chartered name should be seen as the club's full name in, for example, the introductory paragraph or in the infobox.

The specific club in question has a legally chartered name in all of its legal paperwork as "Atlanta United Football Club, LLC" and it conducts business under that name. However, in its public branding, the "LLC" is dropped and "Football Club" is abbreviated to "FC". There are other clubs whose chartered name is in line with their club's public branding such as "Chicago Fire Soccer, LLC" and "New York City Football Club, LLC" and they conduct business under that club name. In other cases, the club's name is one thing and it does business as that name, but then it brands its team slightly differently, such as "Red Bull New York, Inc." who then does business under that name but brands its first team as "the New York Red Bulls". And then there are clubs whose legally chartered name is completely different from their club's branding name and is not the name they use to conduct business, thus on all legal documents they add a DBA (does business as) disclaimer, such as "KSE Soccer, LLC, dba Colorado Rapids" or "OnGoal, LLC, dba Sporting Kansas City".

So the question I'd like to posit is what be should MLS clubs' full name on their article? There are three options:

1. Use the club's legally chartered name 2. Use the club's business name 3. Use the club's public branding

My personal position is to use option 2, but the editor with whom I am disputing prefers option 3. He suggested posting this here to get more opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Gerstle (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Premier league football clubs spell out "football club" in the opening of the lede and the infobox, even though the article titles use "F.C.". So unless there is a different MLS convention, the article should start "Atlanta United Football Club are ... " and the infobox should have "Atlanta United Football Club".   Jts1882 | talk  16:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not clear if there is a set MLS convention. Each club kind of does its own thing in terms of naming. For example, Seattle makes it clear on their facebook page that the full name of the club is "Seattle Sounders Football Club", and the history section of Vancouver shows the full name as "Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club". But for Atlanta, as an example, there's no use of the full "Atlanta United Football Club" other than in legal documents. C. Gerstle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This has come up before. I seem to recall I contributed to the same argument a few years ago when I pointed out that the actual legal name of one of the teams was actually something like "Prior Investment Corp trading as Football Club United" which didn't reference Football Club anywhere else in any of their literature and instead referred to another copyright they owned that they licensed from MLS. It was bizarre. In the end, the Football Club full name should be referenced even if they only use FC everywhere else. The FC element is just a styling element, bearing in mind everyone in the US calls it "Soccer" anyways. Koncorde (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The legally chartered name wouldn't necessarily be the club's name, as is suggested in the OP. Their website suggests that the club's name is Atlanta United FC as opposed to Atlanta United Football Club, however a paragraph on their website is ambiguous:

We are called a Football Club because we are more than just a team. We are the fans, we are the community, we are Atlanta. Taken from the voices of the citizens. This is your city, this is your club. We are Atlanta United FC.

— About the Club, Atlanta United FC

Beyond the marketing nonsense, I can't tell if they're called Atlanta United Football Club because they say "We are called a Football Club" or they're called Atlanta United FC because they say "We are Atlanta United FC". Clyde1998 (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit of pedantry: No MLS article should ever start out with anything like "Atlanta United Football Club are .... " The collective plural is not standard in American English, which would be the appropriate style used in an article about any US-related topic. Bonus pedantry: The exception mentioned by Catherine Soanes in that link doesn't apply because an article on AUFC is emphasizing its collective identity, not the individuals involved. :) - PhilipR (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We drop legal suffix in article titles and it is no where relevant to include LLC, SpA, plc, Ltd in the common name except the full name parameter. Also, club may have trading name, Liverpool F.C. is actually incorporated as "THE LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB AND ATHLETIC GROUNDS LIMITED"(or at least it is the name of the holding company of the group). It seem wise to use trading name of the football club and/or commonly known name instead of the legal name of the company. For F.C. (with dot) and FC (without dot) it is an endless argument (as well as FC v. Football Club), in some case it did an aberration of the word football club (or other language equivalent that also start with alphabet F and C) of the legal name of the club, but with some case it just decoration which had no official meaning. For whatever reason, FC Porto, FC Barcelona are without dot while other club had dot. Matthew_hk tc 00:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the option 2, such as "Atlanta United FC" in the article title and "Atlanta United FC" or "Atlanta United Football Club" in the lead section. But the infobox top should also use the article title name, "Atlanta United FC". I believe the common name in English sources should have priority. BaboneCar (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)`

References

CS Universitatea Craiova move request

Could some editors with good will read the (recent) history of the clubs at the articles (currently) named CS Universitatea Craiova and FC U Craiova 1948, in the Romanian league system, and then express an opinion at Talk:CS Universitatea Craiova#Requested move 22 July 2018? It's about a recent change in the (first) club's name and a proposed move of the page to the new one. Thank you. BaboneCar (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

International goals tables

I am making national team goalscoring tables for female footballers which already don't have one, starting with the scorers in the 2015 World Cup qualifiers. Since many of these articles have little text the wide tables used normally would collide with the club career tables and get unbalanced. So I'm making these more concise tables in a smaller font. I believe they're easier to the eye like this and that they show all the important information and make it easier to see the scoring progression or how many goals were scored in final tournaments. Another table could be made next for goals in friendlies and invitational tournaments. Which of the two models do you think is better?

Goals scored for the Russian WNT in official competitions

Competition	Stage	Date	Location	Opponent	Goals	Result	Overall
2007 FIFA World Cup	Qualifiers	2005–08–28	Moscow	Scotland	1	6–0	4
		2005–09–01	Zug	Switzerland	1	2–1
		2006–05–24	Perth	Scotland	1	4–0
		2006–09–23	Moscow	Switzerland	1	2–0
2009 UEFA Euro	Qualifiers	2007–06–16	Krasnoarmeysk	Poland	1	3–1	1
2011 FIFA World Cup	Qualifiers	2009–10–25	Krasnoarmeysk	Republic of Ireland	1	3–0	1
2013 UEFA Euro	Qualifiers	2011–09–21	Racibórz	Poland	1	2–0 1	6
		2012–03–31	Podolsk	North Macedonia	3	8–0
		2012–06–21	Sarajevo	Bosnia and Herzegovina	1	1–0
	First Stage	2013–07–12	Norrköping	France	1	1–3
2015 FIFA World Cup	Qualifiers	2013–10–31	Senec	Slovakia	1	2–0	2
		2014–08–21	Samara	Slovakia	1	3–1
2019 FIFA World Cup	Qualifiers	2018–04–05	Zenica	Bosnia and Herzegovina	1	6–1	1

¹ The scoreline was subsequently changed for a 3–0 default win.

This is one I just made about Elena Morozova. Pakhtakorienne (talk)

For me, personally, the overall table at the end is not needed, just a "#" at the beginning which goal it is, same with Stage. Colours should not be there and the dates should be in DMY style (or MDY in sepcific cases). So, not sure i call this an improvement. The "old" ones were good as they are/were. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Big fat no. The standard table - seen at Anthony Laffor#International goals, for example, is fine. GiantSnowman 18:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't get why. Like this you can see easily in which competitions and final tournaments the player contributed more goals and the overall progression. With the standard table it's difficult to tell one competition from another. I don't see what's wrong with either the overall table or the colors. Pakhtakorienne (talk)

Too big, clutter, useless "things". Just no. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, that's actually how I would describe the standard table, with information of little relevance like the stadium and overdetailing like which exact goals the player scored. Another problem is that in less known national teams it's hard to find collections of the goals scored in friendly games so you may not be able to make a correct #1 #2 #3... list. Pakhtakorienne (talk)

Anyway it's okay if I keep doing them like this in articles where there's none, right? I mean, as much as I wouldn't agree I can understand if they get replaced by standard tables because that's what the moderation wants or whatever, but they won't be just deleted, right? Pakhtakorienne (talk)

Just use the normal ones, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't see why. Pakhtakorienne (talk)

Because that's the long-established standard and you have no consensus to change, OK? GiantSnowman 19:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

With the way this thread is unfolding, rather than a substantiated standard it seems like some kind of dogma. I've yet to read an objective reason why the standard format is more appropiate. If the point of the wikiproject is to impose standards with no rhyme or reason answers like "Just no", "Big fat no", "Just do it the other way" or what you just said may be alright, but they're hardly convincing. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So yeah, for the moment I'll keep adding this relevant information this way in articles where it might never be added otherwise, feel free to "standarize" if you feel like it but please keep things aligned like in that Anthony Laffor article because it's a mess otherwise. Working on Kaja Jerina right now. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Questions about this "new" table: Elena scored 1 goal against Scotland - which one? The first, last? With the example table given above for Anthony Laffor, it's easy to see that he scored the first and last goal for Liberia against Djibouti etc. Also, which stadium in Moscow was the game played? As there is only a link to Moscow and the Competition, it's not as obvious where the game was played, unlike in Anthony's table where the venue is listed. I'd say the way its currently done (like for Anthony) is far more useful and provides better information. Leave it as is? --Philk84 (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

- This conversation is a little unnerving for many reasons. The responses to the suggestion being that the table isn't good, or, we already have consensus is not exactly helpful. A consensus is only valid until a new proposal is put forward, although I agree all tables should be consistent, regardless of gender.

The bigger issue, is that a table was created purely because the women's articles traditionally are only stub articles. However, this is a bit of false logic, as we should be improving these articles with text, rather than changing the tables to fit in with the lack of prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I much prefer the table we already use as it's sortable and your table isn't. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Then someone needs to review Anthony's table, as that's not sortable at the moment. This table could be sortable, but it does start to get complicated as it's using rowspans with the competition listed like this and might start to get confusing to return to the original ordering (not a problem in the current table, as it's sorted by the goal number). I'm wondering, could this become a template, rather than a table, then it would be easier to implement a consistent look across all players? --Philk84 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I second the above. Where possible, we should have templates rather than tables when used across lots of articls. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Squad lists when a club dissolves

This refers to Template:FC Stal Kamianske squad and the player pages that formerly transcluded that template. @Bufo bovem constuprabat: has emptied the template on the basis that FC Stal Kamianske has dissolved. I would prefer that the team's squad list dated March 30, 2018 be retained and restored to the player pages. Is there a standard procedure when a club dissolves? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The template should be merged/deleted to the main article. The "last" squad can be seen in the article. No need to have that template at each player's article. Kante4 (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is standard to delete the squad template when a team dissolves. GiantSnowman 12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing inherently notable about a final squad and, once the club has dissolved, it has no squad. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ipswich Town Page Section

The Ipswich Town honours section appears completely unsourced and includes youth team games, friendlies, and reserve team competitions. This seems to go against the general standard for what is included in club hauls and of course against the policy of unsourced content. I started a discussion on the article talk page where I suggested an alternative structure more in line with other clubs' sections as well as one sourced with the club's official website and outside sources I could find. The editor I debated with did not agree with my suggestions and said that 'there's no doubt that all the claims are 100% factually accurate' without providing evidence, and when I asked him to do so and gave a period of several weeks for it, he said he would not look as he didnt want to 'chase my demands'. I did spend some time looking and while I did find sources for the youth cup, I did not manage to get some for the friendly and reserve comps. So with a lack of consensus reached, I was hoping we could establish one here on what format to use for the section. If you look on the talk page I've linked you'll see the structure and sources I've proposed to use in place of the one currently published. Any additional advice on some tweaking etc would also be gladly welcomed. Appreciate any help on the matter! Davefelmer (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

National association football team kits

Following the issue with club articles last week (now resolved), I've just found this category - Category:National association football team kits. I won't have time to PROD/AFD its articles any time soon. Please can somebody pick this up? Cheers. GiantSnowman 08:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.–Tottenham Hotspur F.C. rivalry

Should the article name have the F.C. bit in it? Govvy (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All other such articles do........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, its standard - especially as it's about Chelsea F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C.... GiantSnowman 10:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

See Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry Good article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought it looked funny the way it currently is. I would of thought that, Chelsea vs Tottenham Hotspur rivalry or Millwall vs West Ham United rivalry would of been a better title for under common search term and under WP:COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You'd need F.C. in there somewhere, or it'd seem like Chelsea and Tottenham had a rivalry in general, outside of football, which, even if they did, that's not what the article is about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Standard naming in Category:England football derbies... GiantSnowman 11:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that happening, it's the title of the articles, at the moment they seem fragmented to me. There is no fluidity, read it out load, including reading out loud the dots and dash. Does that not sound like a fragmented title? Govvy (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

- I'd potentially get behind a "Chelsea-Tottenham Hotspur F.C. rivalry" discussion, but not remove the F.C. completely. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am intrigued by a general Chelsea v Tottenham rivalry, but agree that including the F.C. in the title makes it clunky. How about Chelsea - Tottenham Hotspur football rivalry? I don't think many people would take it to mean a rivalry between Spurs supporters and the people of Chelsea. An objection to including the FCs in the title is that implies the rivalry is between the clubs rather than the supporters.   Jts1882 | talk  13:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds much better with having football rivalry instead of the clunky F.C. in the title. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How is putting "football" any better/less 'clunky' than sticking with "F.C." - in fact, why not scrap "F.C." altogether from the whole of Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 14:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the title which I posted above, why would you think I would want to change anything else? Govvy (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia

Hi, I have a disagreement with User:S.A. Julio over this and I thought I can bring the issue here. whatever Football project decides is fine with me. the question is to use Yugoslavia or FR Yugoslavia for the country for Euro 2000 and World Cup 1998 pages. both FIFA and UEFA use the term "Yugoslavia". I can't see why we should use that "FR" thing in wikipedia, we also don't use SFR Yugoslavia for older pages. in all other sports in wikipedia they simply use Yugoslavia. also for the Yugoslavia at the Olympics. I know all those political differences between SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia, but it doesn't really matter, the official documents use only "Yugoslavia". Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say WP:OTHERCONTENT applies. Using 'FR Yugoslavia' makes it clearer to readers and prevents ambiguity while not detracting from the articles. The Olympics is different, for football we have a separate article for the team of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro, hence the reason to be clear for those who may not be familiar in this unique circumstance. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth honours in separate section - Part 2

This is Part 1. The article is Leo Fasan. The article section is below:

Celtic

• Glasgow Cup winner: 2011
• Scottish Youth Cup winner: 2011–12 & 2012–13
• SPFL U20 League champion: 2013–14
• SPFL Development League champion: 2015–16

I say they are referenced and should remain in the article, citing Wikipedia:BLP & Wikipedia:V. User:Davefelmer keeps removing the section, citing the fact the he personally does not like it, saying "Nobody else has U-19 wins and reserve leagues listed. What is to stop people from adding U-16 and U-12 then to artificially bloat people's sections?)". The honours are included in Celtic's honours list, not surprising really seen as they are honours the club has won. So do people think the referenced honours should remain in the Fasan article or do they think that they must be removed so as to prevent under-12 honours being listed in Lionel Messi's article and the like? - EchetusXe 08:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

These competitions all have articles so are obviously notable. That should probably be the standard, so as to prevent the 'bloating' that @Davefelmer seems to be worried about. If it's sourced, I don't see a problem. Nzd (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue against the inclusion of these as I originally did, but what I would suggest is that the 'club' subheading should not read simply Celtic as it is could be inferred that these are first team honours when they are not (I realise it is fairly clear from the names of the competitions listed). Difficult to determine what term should be used as the teams and the cups have the names under-19, under-20, development and youth, but I think there should be something to emphasise they are not senior honours. Crowsus (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I could change it to Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy as is the article for the Celtic youth team.--EchetusXe 16:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Move dicussion with rammifications for club naming conventions

There is currently a move discussion at A.F.C. Bournemouth in which it is proposed to remove the dots from A.F.C. Cheers, Number 57 10:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about whether Catalonia is a national football team

As requested, this conversation has been moved from Talk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team:–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fob.schools, Hunig3, and Fcbjuvenil:,

It looks like there is some edit-waring about whether this is a "national" team. Please also see the conversations above about this.

Rather than moving the article, especially when there has already been discussion about whether this is a "national" team, there should have been some discussion here first.

In addition, I see that infoboxes are getting updated to remove the Catalonia national team info, Hunig3.

What's up? Can you sort this out here rather than edit-warring?

In addition, an ANI was opened up against Hunig3. Again, this should have been talked about first.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I am new to editing in Wikipedia and should have spent more time reading and understanding how it works before editing.

With regards to the topic, I read the discussion but I do not find any valid reason to have the team referred as ”national team", let alone to include the appearances and goals with this regional representative team on the infobox. The team represents a region of Spain, it is not sanctioned by UEFA/FIFA and it is composed of players from many different nations. Including the appearances and goals record on the infoboxes ONLY responds to individuals pushing a political agenda. It is, by all means, false information misleading to readers.

I am not interested in a war of edits, I see that Catalan cyber warriors are working very hard on keeping this delusion going, so if there is no interest in accuracy by other editors, I guess the Catalan super national team made of people from all over the world and playing friendlies will keep counting as "national team" experience for legends such as Iniesta, born in the province of Albacete (Castile-La Mancha region).Hunig3 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please start a discussion thread about regional "official/representative" team in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Matthew hk tc 07:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than starting what would be a third thread on this topic (there's also an WP:ANI opened on this here), I posted a message there requesting input here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the evidence that the Catalonia team is "composed of players from many different nations". That may have been true in the past when players would make guest appearances for the team, but these days the Catalonia team only selects players that would be eligible for them under FIFA rules. Sergej Milinkovic-Savic, for example, plays for Serbia now, but he was born in Lleida, so would be eligible to play for Catalonia were they recognised by UEFA/FIFA. – PeeJay 10:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support the change of name to 'Representative Team' or similar for all teams which are not FIFA sanctioned so do not play official internationals. Regarding the caps from the Infobox, we should at least be putting (unofficial) beside the name due to inconsistencies that result from counting the non-FIFA team but not their opponents. For the example, Ferjani Sassi scored for Tunisia v Basque Country in 2016, but neither that appearance or goal is included in his totals because it wasn't a FIFA friendly, and that is the correct way, otherwise its too complicated to display. On the other hand, some other non-FIFA teams are included in Infoboxes such as the old English League XI and Scottish League XI teams. So I think they could stay as long as its made obvious that it's not full national caps. Crowsus (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there was a discussion thread about all regional teams of Spain, especially the "WP:article titles" convention. So, it should start another thread in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. For eligibility it is another story. The coach and/or the regional FA selected players whatever they want, as it is not regulated by UEFA and FIFA eligibility committee, that formerly called Players' Status Committee Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There are essentially two questions here: (one) is Catalonia a nation, which leads into (two) is the Catalonia team, usually, comprised of Catalan players? I feel that Catalonia meets the definition, laid out here, to be considered a nation – note that a nation is not the same as a sovereign state or country (arguably some teams, such as Yugoslavia's – using an historical example – shouldn't be described as a "national team", as Yugoslavia was a multinational state).

As to whether the team is usually comprised of Catalan players: all the players listed in the current squad list and in the recent call-ups list were born in Catalonia.

The article list nineteen 'guest players' that weren't born in Catalonia, but have played for the Catalan team – there are probably missing players from that list. Under the current FIFA eligibility rules:

• Three players would have been eligible for their debut:
  • Two would have been eligible to play for Catalonia in a FIFA sanctioned match via the parents and grandparents regulations;
  • One would have been eligible to play for Catalonia in a FIFA sanctioned match via the lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 regulation
• Three players would have been ineligible for their debut, but are borderline cases:
  • Three had lived in Catalonia for more than five years, but hadn't lived in Catalonia for five years following their eighteenth birthday;
• Four players would have been ineligible due to playing for another country, but may have been eligible otherwise when they made their debut:
  • One had played for Spain – born outside Catalonia – prior to making their first Catalonia appearance, had lived continuously for at least five years in Catalonia after reaching the age of 18 prior to their Catalonia debut;
  • Three had already played for another nation before living in Catalonia, but had lived continuously for at least five years in Catalonia after reaching the age of 18 (none of them have a date of their first Catalonia appearance, so I can't identify for certain if they would've been eligible to play for Catalonia, had they not played for another country first, or not);
• The remaining nine players were not close to being eligible on their debut – six would've met the requirements at a later date provided they hadn't played for another country.
  • The most recent player in this category made their Catalonia debut in 1976.

In general, therefore, I believe that the current Catalonia team is a national team complying within FIFA regulations – even without being bound by them – in terms of player eligibility. There are cases when Catalonia have fielded players that would be ineligible in FIFA-regulated matches in the past, some are more understandable inclusions in the squad than others, but these are largely, although not entirely, from over a twenty-five ago based on that list. I'd say that the article of the title is accurate. Clyde1998 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussion was about the nature of the team, Catalonia is not a member of UEFA and FIFA and the country it not a sovereign nation, as the previous declaration deemed a failure. (it is fine to call it "national team" if it is a member of FIFA/UEFA/AFC/etc but not a sovereign nation, or it is a team from a sovereign nation but not a member of FIFA/UEFA/AFC/etc.) It is inconsistent that Catalonia national football team was followed that convention, but Andalusia autonomous football team is not (moved to current article title in 2007). Matthew_hk tc 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering, where does this leave us?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a 'national' team. GiantSnowman 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the correct article name Catalonia representative football team?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This could get archived off due to inactivity, which basically means that the article title continues to have the word "national" in it. Is that ok? A non-answer to this question essentially means, that yes this is ok - because it will archive off for non-activity. And, I'm fine with that if that's the way it ends up. Just wanting to be sure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My view is that the current title is fine - various non-FIFA non-sovereign 'entities' used the 'national football team'-suffix, such as Northern Cyprus, Tibet, the Basque Country and Brittany, and Catalonia is a nation (albeit within the Spanish state). Clyde1998 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is a "partial" recognized country (despite only Turkey), while no UN member supported Catalonia's declaration of independence. Matthew_hk tc 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My concern is not about whether Catalonia is a nation, but whether the title of the article on its representative team should be the same as FIFA 'national' teams, some of which are not actually sovereign nations. In my opinion, all those which are not currently approved to play in FIFA matches (other than those defunct entities which were approved) should use another title, e.g Catalonia representative football team or something, regardless of that place's claim to be an independent nation in a political sense. That would makes it clear which are FIFA nations and which are not, like the CONIFA group, a lot of which are not nations in any sense and would not claim to be, but have an article called e.g County of Nice national football team. However the Island Games group all seem to be called 'official football team' or similar. Crowsus (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not "national". It's similar to the Barbarian F.C. concept, but based around a national identity such as the New Zealand Barbarians. As it doesn't necessarily need to follow the rules of 'nationality' (even if it might enforce them currently) it should be seen as a 'representative' team of an autonomous region. As per Matthew HK. Koncorde (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, as has been outlined in more detail above, although they aren't governed by FIFA rules, it's been a long time since Catalonia selected any players who wouldn't have been eligible for that territory under standard nationality rules (other than manhy of them have played for Spain of course!) Crowsus (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Crowsus, I subscribe his point of view Hunig3 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? The opinions display and thought-out arguments are interesting, but the best way to find whether or not a title is appropriate depends on how the sources refer to it. A Google news and books search brings up a number of results for the terms "Catalonia national team" and "Catalonia national football team." Are there other alternatives that also bring up results?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked up Catalonia so can't be sure, but locally the Basque Country team (which is exaclty the same status) is refered to as Euskal Selekzioa / Selección de Euskadi (Basque selection), avoiding any 'national' naming argumnts. Crowsus (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of the Island Games teams use 'entity' official football team as they don't necessarily use players that would meet standard eligibility rules - the Isle of Man team exclusively uses players from the Isle of Man league regardless of their background. I feel that using the phrase 'official' could imply a legitimacy that may not exist for certain teams, however.

Looking at how other languages deal with this issue:

• Catalan: Selecció de futbol de 'entity', lit. 'Selection of football from 'entity'' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• Dutch: 'Entity' voetbalelftal, lit. ''Entity-ish' football team' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• French: Équipe des 'entity' de football, lit. 'Team of 'entity' in football' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• German: 'Entity' Fußballnationalmannschaft, lit. ''Entity' national football team'
  • German: Fußballauswahl der 'entity', lit. 'Football team of 'entity'' for non-FIFA teams.
• Italian: Nazionale di calcio del 'entity', lit. 'National football team of 'entity''
  • Italian: Selezione di calcio del 'entity', lit. 'Football selection of 'entity'' for non-FIFA teams.
• Portuguese: Seleção 'Entity' de Futebol, lit. ''Entity-ish' Football Selection' for all country, regional, etc. teams.
• Spanish: Selección de fútbol de 'entity', lit. 'Selection of 'entity' football' for all country, regional, etc. teams.

Most seem to use 'entity' football team or 'entity' football selection (word order varying), with the former seeming to be best in English. I've noticed that a few articles are already called 'entity' football team – Arameans Suryoye football team, Sápmi football team, Shetland football team, Yorkshire football team – which removes the ambiguity and matches the equivalent of a lot of other languages. Clyde1998 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It seem 'entity' football team it the best option, and many article had used that convention. Matthew_hk tc 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, we should first seek out what English sources indicate about the title. It seems to me that the current name, Catalonia national football team, is indeed the preferred one by English sources. Regardless of whether or not this is the "right" name for the team, no doubt has been raised as to whether or not it is the common name. Please remember that we're not here to right great wrongs.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, as a native Spanish speaker, I can assure that the term "entity" is not used (or, at least, not commonly used) in reference to anything. I'm not sure where you're getting this information.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You're getting mixed up there, entity has only been used in this context as an indicator of the geographical place being searched for (an alternative to XXXland or XXXia for example). I think you were worried there were suggestions to change titles to Catalonia football entity or similar? Crowsus (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about kits

Isn't Sporting CP kits considered WP:FANCRUFT? How is it notable? SLBedit (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

See #"Kit history" pages above. Article should be merged. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirected. GiantSnowman 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

DIsparaging nicknames that are notable

How do we stand in including disparaging nicknames in BLPs? When they're backed up by RS? For example, the word "fat" is totally absent in Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer)'s article, talk page and archives, when I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard him referred to that way - and even a quick look shows RS describing him as such. (NB I'm talking about including it in the article, not a page move). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

For Brazilian Ronaldo, maybe cover his well-publicised weight issues in a separate section, maybe a sub-secction of 'Personal life'? GiantSnowman 11:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's probably right, but would we include the dispraraging nickname, as we would any other notable nickname, in the Lead and/or infobox? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to not include nicknames, if they are well publicized. However, they would need to be put into the prose well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Fat Ronaldo" nickname is partly related to his body weight, but mostly a result of Cristiano Ronaldo's rise to fame. There being two Ronaldos (relatively recently), people found new ways to refer to them. There's other nicknames as well related to body weight, such as "Maradoughnut" for Diego Armando Maradona and "El Poton" (Bit Buttocks) for Johnnier Montaño. The latter is an endearing disparaging nickname, not necessarily meant to insult. As GiantSnowman points out, probably the best place for these nicknames is in a "Personal life" section, and probably not in the infobox or lead.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 13:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sicknote's is mentioned practically in the lead in a sort of lead-in section. Mind you, the article is very poorly referenced by tabloids or unreferenced.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are tiny club logos in results tables not acceptable under fair use?

Personally I would love to see tiny club logos instead of or in addition to national flags, e.g. UEFA Champions League results. Although the national flag cue has value for scanning where clubs are from, it seems wrong to me not to have some manifestation of their team colors. However, I presume wiser and more experienced minds than mine have already considered this option and rejected it for some reason. It does seem like they would fall under fair use if the larger version on the team page falls under fair use. Am I assessing this wrongly?

Likewise, presumably colored text on colored backgrounds (see e.g. various American football examples has been rejected. That might be a good thing unless it could be done tastefully.- PhilipR (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary. It is dull for me to put tiny club on this kind of competition Hhkohh (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We are trying to build a quality encyclopaedia here, not the colour supplement of a third grade tabloid. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

To answer the question a little more dispassionately than the users above, you are indeed assessing the Fair Use policy wrongly. Fair Use does allow us to include the logo in the encyclopaedia, but only if its use is minimal. If you take a look at WP:FAIRUSE, you'll see the definition for "minimal usage" here. – PeeJay 06:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I will never apologise for being passionate about making this a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding coloured text on coloured backgrounds, you need to be careful because a lot of uses can violate WP:ACCESS for people who are colour-blind. Govvy (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would say we should stick with national flags as some club logos at a small size are virtually unrecognisable, not to mention it would violate fair use to plaster copyrighted logos all over the place plus I highly doubt that club colours are really that relevant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I struggle to see what having a tiny logo would add to the information. If you want to know a club's colours, crest etc, click on the wikilink. More images = more clutter. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree - it would add absolutely nothing of value -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The rationale in favor is that color is an important visual cue that can reinforce important information. It's not necessary in the sense that photos in articles, headings and subheadings, or other visual cues that enhance the readability of articles are necessary, just helpful in some contexts. "If you want to know a club's colours, crest etc, click on the wikilink," is equally valid as an argument to remove the national flags since each club's geographical location is also available at the wikilink. Wikipedia has never been close to accepting Don't repeat yourself as a design goal; there are many pieces of information repeated multiple places in the encyclopedia.

(I don't advocate for removing the national flags; actually I'd prefer a coding scheme with more separation between, e.g., Venezuela and Colombia or England and Georgia, but I understand how that could grow unwieldy.) - PhilipR (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You couldn't do it under fair use, but either way I don't think it would look good. Italian Wikipedia uses 'club flags' (or at least that's my best description) and it just looks wrong: it:UEFA Champions League 2017-2018#Fase a eliminazione diretta. To have something like Club name would look strange, IMO. Clyde1998 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree about those Italian "club flags". They should really be deleted as bad examples of original research, but I can only assume the Italian Wikipedia is less strict on that shit. – PeeJay 06:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really original research, but I can't see one iota of additional encyclopedic value in having a little red square next to Liverpool's name..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Johan Cruijff Arena

The Amsterdam Arena has been officially renamed to "Johan Cruijff Arena", should the article title use 'Cruijff' (official stadium name and Dutch spelling) or 'Cruyff' (anglicised version)? From this article, a spokeswoman for the Cruijff family said "in an international context, maybe it will be called Cruyff Arena, but for the official name it was chosen to stay close to the Dutch Johan." Pinging Thayts, who discussed this on the article's talk page. As Ajax play their first competitive match of the season tomorrow, I'd think now the article could be moved to the new name? S.A. Julio (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to have a summary of English language source in order to decide. Also, is there any article title MoS for building structure? Matthew_hk tc 01:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

UEFA uses the Dutch spelling on the match page. I would assume many sources would copy that, unless the opposite happens I would stick to Cruijf. CRwikiCA talk 02:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Most English language articles do seem to use 'Cruyff' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). S.A. Julio (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: According to [15] the Johan Cruyff Shield match is the traditional (Dutch) season opening, which is on 4 August. The match of today is only a qualifier match for the (international) Champions League and those qualifiers have been going on for a while already. Regarding the spelling of the article name, I'll leave that up to you guys. Thayts ••• 18:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio:Good point there, although they all mention the renaming. It might become a mix, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. CRwikiCA talk 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now opened a move discussion at the article's talk page. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lame edit wars

If anyone would care to express a view on my entry for the lamest edit war of the season competition, to wit, whether the nickname of Birmingham City F.C. is "Blues" or "The Blues", please would they visit Talk:Birmingham City F.C.#Nickname. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dontan PCCM F.C.

Wider input welcome here - the argument is whether or not participating in the qualifying rounds of a national cup is sufficient to confer notability. GiantSnowman 14:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Do I need approval here to add "sortable"?

Hi Project Football!

I added "sortable_table = yes" to 2018_International_Champions_Cup#Table and put an explanation on the Talk page but got reverted and told that "consistency and standard format for association football, changes should be discussed at WT:FOOTY".

Do I really need approval here when I want to make a football table sortable?

Sortable lets you check who has already played two matches, or which team has scored the most goals, and many other things. I don't see what's objectionable. So, can I make the edit or not?? Great floors (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the benefit of this. The table is small enough that you should be able to see who scored the most goals at a glance. It's really just there to show you who wins the tournament at the end of all the games. – PeeJay 20:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The 2017–18 Premier League#League table isn't sortable. It sorted by the rules that determine the final classification. As long as it's sorted by the relevant rules, it shouldn't need sorting I would have thought? --Philk84 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

For the International Champions Cup, the clasification is mostly useless since some teams have played all three of their matches and others haven't played any yet. So you have to sort it by something else to see anything useful. And in general, it's always useful to be able to sort a league table by goals scored, goals conceded and as many other things as possible. Classification doesn't tell the whole story. We've collected all this info, why not make it easy to consult? And the price is just two small arrows. Great floors (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with above that it's not needed for such tables. Kante4 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, having a table be sortable in any other way than the official classification could be confusing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha. I think we're talking about different things. I agree the tables should all be sorted by the official classification. The sortable_table option just adds arrows so that if the reader wants to see the teams sorted by something else, they can click the arrows and see who's scored more goals, or played more matches, or let in loads of goals, or whatever. Here's an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_International_Champions_Cup&oldid=852522458#Table

So the table is still sorted by official classification. It only changes if the reader wants to see a different sorting. Great floors (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, but I still disagree. I can't really see a time when someone would be searching for the most amount of goals scored, over the points they have - (With the exception of the Emirates Cup.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How can anyone follow football and only look at the ranking? For the league I follow, I'd pretty much know the ranking off by heart, so I'd usually consult a table for some other stats. For leagues I only check occasionally, when I see a team doing surprisingly well or badly, I'll sort by goals for/against to get a first indication of whether their placing it due to attack or defense, or some websites let you sort by home/away points and goals, so you can check how playing at home affects a team. The list goes on and on! Why put all this data into the tables if we don't make the slightest effort to facilitate people consulting the data? Great floors (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kante4 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. Admittedly it was a radical plan. I guess Wikipedia isn't ready yet for trying out little arrows on a minor football article :-) Great floors (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems the MOS seems to prefer sortability, although it is phrased ambiguously. I think there is a use for it as it does not clutter anything up, that it is not the way it is currently done does not matter for that argument. There might be a MOS discussion that clears that up, or if you decide to ask for clarification there, please refer to this discussion and ping the participants. CRwikiCA talk 02:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Non FIFA Matches

Should Non-FIFA matches be taken into consideration in the international caps count or not? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They should not be considered as full caps for modern players. Clyde1998 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not quite as definitive as that. For instance, Scotland's Euro2016 qualifiers against Gibraltar aren't "FIFA matches", because Gib weren't yet members of FIFA, but it'd come as a nasty shock to Steven Fletcher, the Scottish FA, and multiple WP:RS if his caps and goals were all taken away. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 108#International caps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit too blunt in my response – I meant unsanctioned matches, with any game sanctioned by FIFA, normally if that country is also a member of a confederation, being categorised as full internationals. Kosovo's match against Haiti in 2014 would be classified as a full international, despite Kosovo not being a FIFA member at the time, as it was sanctioned by FIFA. Clyde1998 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Atlético CP

Should the club article be on Atlético C.P. and the redirect the other way around or not? Govvy (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Most Portuguese clubs are listed with the dots. -Koppapa (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Most club except FC Porto and Sporting CP for recent unknown reason vote move. Matthew_hk tc 09:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

EFL on Quest

Hello. This is just a heads-up really. I've updated the Quest (TV channel) article with a report of their shambolic coverage last night of the opening EFL matches. I've used the DigitalSpy investigation but if anyone has material about the coverage from other sources like today's papers, please add it to the article.

I was at the Preston-QPR game and I wanted to see our goal on the highlights because it seemed to be in the "how did that go in" category. Luckily, the picture wasn't breaking up during our piece but even so it was off-putting to see it in 4:3 aspect! I like watching old movies in 4:3 but not modern footy games. Lets hope Quest can get their act together as they've got a four-year deal. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Style: Champions League Team List

2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Teams has been edited to remove 'column headers in the middle of the table' (previous years have also been changed). The revision ([16]) cites MOS:ACCESS as the reason for changing the style of the table, specifically MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table:

Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table. Assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one... In most cases, the easier solution is to split the table into several sub-tables with explanatory sub-headings (second example).

I have to say, what's there now looks awful when compared to what's been the standard for years for European competitions. The alignment of the individual cells in the table have been thrown off by this and there doesn't seem to be an obvious (quick) solution to correct this with the format of the table being used in this revision, considering that there's no individual header of each column - so the column size is dictated by the width of the text (this appears to be the case for the standard layout, but its much less noticeable). Most notably, however, the width of the Champions path and League path varies heavily between rounds - which makes it very hard to read who's in what section at a glance.

The MOS page notes 'editors seem reluctant to split tables', which describes my position. If the purpose of MOS:ACCESS is to make reading Wikipedia easier for people requiring assistive technologies, then that's good; if it makes reading Wikipedia harder for people who don't require assistive technologies it kind of defeats the point of it.

What's the best course of action on this? The top of the MOS:DTT has a template saying 'It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community', while the MOS:ACCESS page states 'It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.'

I'm minded to revert the table to how it was and then seek to find a solution that can fit both MOS:ACCESS and the reading ability for people who don't require assistance to read Wikipedia. Clyde1998 (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks really awful. If the way it was presents an issue for screen readers etc, perhaps the markup needs changing so the screen reader works better. – PeeJay 07:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Pretty big and not for people with small resolutions. Kante4 (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've returned the tables to the way they were for now, while we look at an approach that could apply with MOS:DTT. Clyde1998 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What about something like 2019–20 UEFA Women's Champions League#Teams? Seems like the easiest solution to me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe no table at all? Women 2018/19: User:Koppapa/sandbox#CL_list,_no_table . -Koppapa (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I support both the proposed table from the 2019-20 UEFA Women's Champions League and the proposed list. When confronted with accessibility issues we should not give priority to aesthetics over accessibility. As for Clyde1998 in the version I had created the column widths of the subtables can actually be made to match by applying the "width=" parameter to the top cell of the affected columns of the relevant sub-tables.Tvx1 14:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree to use old format because it looks too dull to me. Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No table also looks too dull and using 2019–20 UEFA Women's Champions League#Teams format cannot tell us whether teams are from Champions Path or League Path Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A compromise might be to use separate tables for each qualifying stage but wrap them in an outer table to help with the formating. Set each inner table to using the full width of the outer table and use style="table-layout:fixed;" to fix the column widths. See this test example User:Jts1882/sandbox/list. I think this way the accessibilty readers won't be confused and the format can be made aesthetically pleasing with a bit more work on the formating.   Jts1882 | talk  15:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer table 1 Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Jts1882's proposals solve all the issues. The second one has my preference, though the space between the separate tables is a too excessive. Hhkohh, something looking "dull" is not a meaningful argument. Accessibility trumps looks every time. Functionality is what matters, not looks.Tvx1 16:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The spacing is just a matter of playing with the padding and margin (mainly the latter). The other difference is adding class wikitable to get the background shading for the parent table. I've reduced the spacing on the second option.

If anyone wants to play with these, feel free to add alternatives on my test page. It might be easier having them in one place.   Jts1882 | talk  16:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Now your second proposal looks perfect to me.Tvx1 17:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think nested tables are any more accessible to screenreaders than the original one (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Avoiding_nested_data_tables). -Koppapa (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this particular outer table will change the read order of the screenreader. It is a simple table with one cell per row that contains the table for the round. There is no complicated nesting.

Anyway, the table was just a container to make the tables use the same width without having to set the width explicitly. A div wrapper works just as well and simpifies the code, see User:Jts1882/sandbox/list#Teams 3. I'm not sure why I used the table in the first place apart from a misplaced desired to avoid HTML.   Jts1882 | talk  10:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made the change at 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Teams. The table is split into separate tables by round and they are enclosed in a wrapper to align the tables. Hopefully this matches User:Tvx1's proposed change and satifies people about the appearance.   Jts1882 | talk  10:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

But never mind to me Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: The tables are set to width:100% so that the columns in all the round tables align. If narrower tables are required, then the width of the containing div element can be changed, e.g. width:80% would look better on my screen. I think this is a bad idea as it makes the appearance more dependent on screen size. An alternative would be to set the width in pixels so that the longest club name doesn't wrap.   Jts1882 | talk  15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't look too wide, I don't mind. 100% was too wide on a 1920x1080 monitor. – PeeJay 15:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your changes may be better on your screen, but wikipedia is designed for the general public, not you solely. The 60% width looks terrible on smaller screens because the cell contents wrap. Please discuss the changes here before making them. The changes I made were based on the discussion above.

I have set the div element to width:800px, which is wide enough to prevent wrapping of cell contents, at least on the monotype skin. Is this change more suitable?   Jts1882 | talk  15:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

While I personally prefer what we had before, I'm happy with what we've got now. It's much clearer to read than what we had before and it doesn't take up the full width of the screen. I'm assuming that this applies with MOS:DTT. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Jts1882, screen size doesn't alone doesn't guarantee how something appears. One can still opt for a small screen resolution if the text is simply to small on the biggest resolution on large screen. Also, wrapping can be prevented by adding nowrap to the cells with the longest content in each column.Tvx1 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we not list super cups in player intros anymore?

An editor is repeatedly removing the FA Community Shield from player leads from the likes of Daley Blind and Ander Herrera despite various sources including official club ones and other commonly used reliable sources existing to cite the information along with his total trophy haul at the club. He keeps saying he is exercising 'editorial judgement' and that nobody 'gives a shit about the CS' so it shouldnt be listed despite it being cited in the sources before deleting the sources themselves, which would surely open up a new bag of worms as to what competitions general readers will 'give a shit about' i.e. would this concern the UEFA Super Cup, League Cup etc. The vast majority of decorated players, including some of the most decorated ever, have super cups listed in their trophy hauls (as long as they are reliably sourced) so my question is has this policy changed and we now only list trophies we deem readers will care about? If so that would drastically change the information listed for tons of players across the project, which I can get to work on if policy has changed. Davefelmer (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I know you're not that kind of editor, but it is considered polite to tag the person you're referring to rather than posting about them discreetly. I removed the Community Shield from the list of their honours in their lead paragraphs because it is very unlikely that readers would be looking for information about their Community Shield wins in the opening couple of lines of their articles. Same goes for the UEFA Super Cup. Not sure why you're lumping the League Cup in with those though... – PeeJay 17:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I simply was not trying to name names and instead discuss the issue. I still think the sources should take priority, and in listing what a player has won they are included as they are official titles, so thus should be included in the section. I included the League Cup in my assessment because of its age-old stigma as irrelevant ('The Worthless Cup' as it was referred to when it was The Worthington Cup), one that is maintained today within my circles and various online forums I frequent. It is similarly unlikely that readers would look at an article to see how many League Cups someone has won, and I would argue moreso that readers would be more interested in a general, full trophy haul than one that tries to distinguish what people care more about. In general this is what appears in the vast majority of footballer articles, so such a mindset on these few looks out of place on the whole, unless there is a new policy in place. If people start arbitrarily judging what trophies the reader would care about, there would be no consistency within articles as editors will have their own different views on the matter, so I'd say the status quo and what the sources list should be maintained. Davefelmer (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The article as a whole should, of course, provide a complete assessment of the subject. However, the lead does not have such requirements; it is simply intended to provide a brief overview of the article as a whole. As editors, we should show some level of editorial judgement, not just include all the info indiscriminately. It is not a non-neutral point of view to say that the Community Shield is of lower value than the League Cup, which is of a lower value than the FA Cup, etc. – PeeJay 18:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I'd say thats also arbitrary, all official trophies are worth the same in the trophy cabinet (1 honour), and while fans will disagree, this is a source-based encyclopedia that should be based more on officiality rather than fan opinion. Secondly, if going by the prestige rank, then the FA Cup would also be less prestigious than the title or Champions League. Where do we draw the line on what is the cut off point for what is prestigious enough to include? Some comps are percieved totally differently in different places, like the FIFA Club World Cup. Often treated as totally worthless in some European countries, it is seen as the biggest club trophy in football on continents like South America. There is simply no consistent standard to apply. People that support huge teams that win a lot will inevitably see secondary cups like the CS, League Cup and Euro Super Cup as worthless but the majority of clubs that have won nothing would do anything to win a Community Shield or a League Cup. It most certainly wouldnt be deemed worthless by them or their fans. You are also only talking of removing one or two comps from articles, including them would hardly bloat the lead, but not including them would go against reliable sources. Davefelmer (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is one of those things were it really depends on the player what would be included in the opening paragraph. If a "Super" Cup is all they have won, it might be worth mentioning, but if they have won multiple, higher honours, it would not be. This kind of mirrors your club opinion above. Blind, for example, has multiple honours listed in the lead, including 3 for Man U. Adding the CS does not provide much else to the introduction. CRwikiCA talk 02:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

But that doesnt hold true for the standard applied to other articles across the project. Even extremely decorated players have super cups listed in their intros, Gianluigi Buffon, Phil Neal and Steven Gerrard to name but three, the first two of which are some of the most decorated players in football history. If the sources list them then surely they provide a better overview of what the player won, it hardly takes up a lot more space listing the super cups, and in Blind and Herrera's case we are talking three extra words to provide extra context, and backed with sources. In any case, it would be best to clear up a consistent standard from this then as articles will have to be altered if people dont want super cups in the intros. Davefelmer (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In the lead, major trophies should be listed. League, continental and international. I'm torn on cups (FA Cup, DFB-Pokal e.g.) but could live with it. Supercups and League cups should not be there. Kante4 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The context of the players career should determine what goes there. It's unnecessary to provide a complete list, especially as the clause usually begins with "including". If a player's sole honour is a supercup, then it would be strange to omit it; it is a notable part of their career. But players like Buffon and Neal don't need the supercups in the lede. If anything the long list takes away focus from the major achievements. Neal's four European Cups are buried in the list, after the charity shields. On the other hand, his Football League Trophy as manager is notable as the only trophy he won in that phase of his career.   Jts1882 | talk  09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly this. It all depends on how relatively successful the player has been. Then again, even if the player had only ever won the Community Shield, I wouldn't necessarily count that as unless they joined the club in the off-season, they probably won the league or FA Cup the season before, which would supersede the Community Shield. – PeeJay 09:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is both no significant reason to likely include every mention of every trophy or award, nor is there a significant reason to remove them. The edit warring is retarded. If in doubt, just summarise as things like "won 4 consecutive championships, and helped the club to 3 other trophies in his time at the club" or similar. The actual detail of the trophies should be in the body. Not referring to those trophies at all is a failure of the lede to summarise significant events. Even if we do not personally rate the CS or League Cup, they are still routinely notable even at the highest level as national competitions. Koncorde (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, if a player has very little honours I see no harm in mentioning it in lead, if a player has a lot of honours then you need to select the most important ones for the lead. Govvy (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

DaveFelmer, please be clear that trying to create a uniform template for what to include or not include in an article lede is a waste of your time. This is particularly true when choosing to remove reference to competitions in already detailed lede's. Consensus on a players talk page is what you need to seek, not make blanket assertions from this talk. Koncorde (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

template question

Should we be using the {{current}} template on the top of season pages for the duration of the football season? Govvy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought {{current}} was only for the event articles, not the subsidiaries. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Merthyr Town F.C.

Does anybody know the legal/technical details on this team? Here's the rundown:

• Merthyr Town F.C. was founded in 1908 and folded in 1934
• A separate club, Merthyr Tydfil F.C. was founded in 1945 and folded in 2010
• Another club, Merthyr Town F.C., was founded as a fan-owned club in 2010

The article Merthyr Town F.C. interprets the 2010 club as a reactivation of the 1908-34 club but has no sources for it. I'm not sure there's any legal basis, nor really any point, in reactivating a club that went bankrupt during the Great Depression. By Occam's razor (not a source, I know), the 2010 club is a phoenix club of the 1945-2010 club, with a different name that just so happens to be the same name as the 1908-34 club.

Unless anybody has a reliable source, Merthyr Town F.C. should be split, just like Aberdeen F.C. (1881), Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) - this can't seriously be the same club.

The nearest thing I can find to tangential evidence is that the 1908 club wore green and orange [17] while the 2010 club shares the black and white of the 2010 club instead. Harambe Walks (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I raised this issue with Number 57 a year or so ago, their response is HERE. The 2010 club was indeed a phoenix club after Merthyr Tydfil went bust. They were reformed several divisions below the level that Tydfil were playing at when it collapsed. Personally I thought that the original Town should be separate from Tydfil and the current Town. Although there was some crossover (the final Town manager was actually instrumental in the foundation of Tydfil for example), it seems odd that a team founded eleven years later can claim to be a follow on, let alone the phoenix club over 60 years later. Would be good to get some wide ranging opinions here. Kosack (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence provided to the contrary, I can't see how the recently formed Merthyr Town can be anything to do with the previous club of that name, other than name and location. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The only problem with a split would be piping every link to Merthyr Town F.C. (1908) and/or Merthyr Town F.C. (2010) Harambe Walks (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say leave the current side at Merthyr Town F.C., as the active side they would probably be the more common search term, and the original side can be moved to (1908)? At least that halves the amount of upheaval. Kosack (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Only thing is, as a former league club, they have the most players to change the category for Harambe Walks (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Either way there's gonna be a decent amount of links to address. Perhaps a bot could be worked in somewhere to do the majority of the work? Kosack (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Guidance regarding transfers (club season style)

The WikiProject Club seasons page lacks guidance on a couple of specific points, and I'd like clarification, or for some consensus to be reached, and for the aforementioned page to then be updated. Transfers in / out are currently a mess. For illustrative purposes, the pages for the current Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United seasons each list transfers in completely different ways, with different columns for the tables, some using club colours, some including flagicons for clubs, different ways of listing undisclosed fees. There are three points specifically that I would like clarification on:

Headings for the article. Transfers and loans, or transfers? Loans as a sub-section of permanent transfers (as occurs on Arsenal's page), or as their own distinct subsection (as occurs on Liverpool's page).

Table style. Which headings should be used? Should squad numbers be included? Contract length? Should custom colours be used for the table? Should tables be sortable?

Table contents. Should flagicons be used to denote which country the other party (club) is from – as occurs in the Arsenal F.C. article? Should positions be listed specifically (LB, DM, CF), or more generally (DF, MF, FW). And if the latter, ought it be hyperlinked? If a fee is reported by a reputable source but officially undisclosed, should it be listed – and if so, how? Should there be a distinction between a released as a free agent (example: Jack Wilshere) and one that is signed by another club for no fee or on a Bosman (example: Stephan Lichtsteiner). Should a released player's future club be listed as the club transferred to – and should a player signed after concluding a contract (like Jack Wilshere) be listed as signed from 'Unattached', 'Free Agent', or from the previous club (in this case, Arsenal)? And if the latter, how long does this distinction hold – some leagues do not have transfer windows, and in lower leagues it isn't uncommon to see players released mid-season. For Bosman transfers, should the signed date be the date the player ended their contract with their previous club, or the date that their signing was announced? Should both be listed?

Other sections. Should there be a section for new contracts for existing players? Should there be a transfer summary?

If we could build a consensus on the above, that would be much appreciated. To make things simpler, I'll distill it into some simple multiple choice questions. I have bolded my choices.

1) Loan transfers should have their own section | Loan transfers should be a subsection of permanent transfers)

2) Custom club colours for tables | non-coloured tables

3) Squad number column | No squad number column

4) Contract length column | No contract duration column

5) Sortable tables | Non-sortable tables

6) Flagicons for other club | No flagicons for other clubs

7) Specific positions (LB, DM, CF) | General positions (DF, MF, FW)

8) Positions should be hyperlinked | Positions shouldn't be hyperlinked

8a) Positions should be hyperlinked as specific positions | Positions should be hyperlinked as general positions

9) Undisclosed fees should be listed | Undisclosed fees shouldn't be listed

9a) Undisclosed fees should be listed in brackets | Undisclosed fees should be listed in a footnote

10) Incoming players: Listed as 'signed from former club' if contract had expired | Listed as 'free agent / unattached' if previous contract had expired

10a) Previous club listed in footnote | Previous club in brackets | Previous club not listed

11) Outgoing players: Listed as 'signed for club' if contract had expired | Listed as 'released' if previous contract had expired

11a) Future club listed in footnote | Future club in brackets | Future club not listed

12) Released players: Date listed as date contract expired | Date listed as when retained list announced by club

13) Transfer date is when a player comes under the new contract | Transfer date is when the transfer is announced

14) Additional section for new contracts | No section for new contracts

15) Additional section for transfer summary (net spending, number of signings etc.) | No section for transfer summary Domeditrix (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

1) Loans shouldn't be listed with permanent transfers; 2) non-coloured tables; 3) no squad numbers; 4) no contract length; 5) non-sortable; 6) flagicons for non-domestic clubs; 7, 8) positions shouldn't be hyperlinked; 9) undisclosed fees should be listed as undisclosed but with a footnote explaining that some sources might have reported the fee; 10) listed as free agent with old club as a footnote if he left during the same transfer window; 11) listed as released, with a footnote listing their new club if they join one during the same transfer window; 12) date contract expired; 13) date new contract takes effect; 14) no section for new contracts; 15) no section for transfer summary – PeeJay 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you class Scottish clubs as domestic or non-domestic in the context of English football – would Berwick Rangers be given an English flag or a Scottish flag? Coloured tables and positions aside, and siding on all UK clubs being 'domestic', I have implemented what you voted for in the Yeovil Town 2018–19 season page. Thoughts? Domeditrix (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I always go by the national association to which the club is affiliated. I believe Berwick Rangers is affiliated to the SFA despite being located in England, while Cardiff and Swansea are affiliated to the FAW despite playing in the English leagues; a transfer between Cardiff City and Bristol City (for example) would be considered an international transfer subject to FIFA paperwork being filed, after all. I notice you kept the coloured headers in the Yeovil article, which I would do away with for accessibility reasons as much as anything. I would also say that the players' positions are not relevant and shouldn't be included, the nationality could be merged with the player's name column, and you could probably also merge the "From" and "Fee" columns when a player is released - if a player is released, obviously they'll be going to "free agency". – PeeJay 18:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there is utility in listing a player's position – and this is one area in the templateless wild west in which we exist right now has seemingly all agreed. I've merged the columns on the Yeovil Town article, what do you think?Domeditrix (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth a discussion as to whether positions are necessary or not. The way I see it, a player's position is listed in the stats section somewhere in the article, so why mention it again? It doesn't really have any bearing on the transfer itself. I might even say we should delete the player's nationality, except in cases where a nation has foreign player quotas. – PeeJay 18:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The rules regarding foreign players varies so wildly across division and nation that I think it is perhaps safer to denote nationality somewhere – plus, it would mean we have consistency across more pages, rather than consistency on a per-division basis. On club pages nationality is often listed next to a squad number, but without this listed there is no 'default place'. Regarding positions, I largely keep to lower-league sides. It is very uncommon for these sides to have a statistics section that is regularly updated, so this cannot be relied upon to show a player's position. Likewise, it is common for players not to have pages (to check position), and for players to move to new clubs fairly quickly (and thus no longer be listed on a club's page). My example here is of Lewis Williams, formerly of Exeter City F.C.. The previous season's page does not contain statistics. He has left the club without making a senior appearance, and has yet to find a new club. The 2018–19 page is therefore the only place where it is logical to list his position, so if we sacrifice that here, then that useful and relevant information leaves Wikipedia.Domeditrix (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if there's no statistics section, the page should at least have some sort of list of all the players who were part of the club's squad during that season, which is where I suggest the position be listed. – PeeJay 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If that is consistently applied then it would allay my concerns. However, I think that for certain leagues where this template may be applied (MLS), the nationality of a player is so important that it bares including regardless. I'll allow others to weigh in on this though, as I do think it's an area that people will care about, and healthy discussion generally results in better templates. One potential hiccough – I don't believe a template for a table containing all players of a team over the course of a season (without statistics) exists – so that would need to be looked into. One final query relates to divisions with drafts, salary caps and limited overseas players. Would checkboxes be sufficient to cover these particular areas should the template be applied to MLS or A-League sides, or would additional notes be necessary? As things stand, transfer sections for MLS clubs are a bit of a mess.Domeditrix (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not just use {{fs start}}, {{fs player}}, {{fs mid}} and {{fs end}} for the squad list like we do in clubs' main articles? – PeeJay 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, and with footnotes do denote where a player joined after the start of a season or left before the end. Back to the main topic of concern, I would support putting nationality in with the player name, but it looks a lot cleaner if aligned to the left in such a case (as seems to be standard for tables using favicons, such as this one). I'd then also argue for including flags for even domestic clubs, as it makes the design more cohesive, particularly for larger clubs where the other parties involved in transfers are more international. I've updated the previously-discussed Yeovil Town page to show my working here. All that said, I don't think it reads (or looks) any better to how it did before, when nationality was its own distinct column and all was centred. This former method is also easier to apply, with no additional style:align-text calls beyond setting up the table itself, whereas the method currently shown requires this whenever there are merged cells. Open to others' views on this, though.Domeditrix (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also welcome your views on whether rows should be merged, and in such a case, which rows? My instinct is to avoid 'To' and 'From' columns for free agents, as under this proposed template they contain information about the previous or current club. Perhaps merging rows containing dates, fees (if multiple free transfers) or loan expiration dates would work? I've applied this, as well as adding more details regarding players' release on the previously-discussed Yeovil Town page. My reasoning is that 'Released' does not distinguish between a player released from his contract by the club following expiration, one released by mutual consent. Whether this distinction is important is open for discussion.Domeditrix (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To see an example of the imagined template in action, please see 2018–19 Exeter City F.C. season#Transfers. I'm unsure whether having flags for domestic clubs violates WP:MOSFLAG, specifically WP:FLAGCRUFT. This argument was made aware to me by user:Ytfc23. I would argue that for player nationality there is no risk of this, as there are knock-on effects for player quotas in most divisions. With regards to the nationality of clubs, perhaps it would be better to limit these to cross-border transfers, or situations where a club's nationality may not be apparent (examples: Cardiff City F.C., Berwick Rangers F.C.).Domeditrix (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, agreed re: limiting flags to international transfers and player nationalities. – PeeJay 11:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Premier League clubs have a lot of foreign players so it helps to show the flag for that player. Some season pages have a little too much information. I wasn't so keen on the way transfers are displayed on that Exeter season page. I have noticed certain editors, including myself have their own styles they like and tend to stick to that style on season pages. I agree that loans are not transfers and should be in separate tables, players released should be in their own table also. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should released players be in their own section? For the club in question, the end result is exactly the same as if the player transferred directly to another club, i.e. they're not on the books any more. The only difference is that no fee was involved; they still terminated the player's contract and registration. – PeeJay 11:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Because a released player is not a transfer!! Govvy (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a compromise be changing the header names? Squad changes (h1) → Permanent additions (h2), Permanent departures (h2), loan additions (h2), loan departures (h2) Domeditrix (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's taking a rather narrow definition of the word "transfer". The "Transfers" section of a season article is meant simply to list the "ins and outs" of a single club over the season, which includes the players who were released. If you check this page, you'll see that Manchester United list the players they've released among the "Outs". – PeeJay 12:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay, Then you kind of have a misnomer use of English via the table heading. The Man U season page is very uninspiring, it's just functional a bit like José Mourinho! Govvy (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a misnomer, it's simply a broader definition than that to which you are accustomed. And what do you mean, "uninspiring"? We're not supposed to be inspiring people, we're supposed to be providing information. – PeeJay 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What about the Exeter page don't you like the look of? I'd really like for the community to come to some consensus, as the lack of uniformity really makes things a chore to read as a user, and a chore to edit as a Wikipedian. I'm not sure I agree with released players being in a completely separate table, as it needlessly complicates things. An outgoing player is an outgoing player, regardless of whether they moved to another club or for a fee. Domeditrix (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, agreed on limiting flags to international transfers and player nationalities. Will amend the Exeter page accordingly. Domeditrix (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Could I get any thoughts on how sections are grouped? Transfers in → Loans in, Transfers out → Loans out vs Transfers in, Transfers out, Loans in, Loans out. Domeditrix (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Player positions could safely be removed should the stat-less squad list that I've added to the 2018–19 Exeter City F.C. season become standard. However, I'm not sure that removing positions from transfer tables would be a popular move, and I do think it may make the information more difficult to find, particularly for squads with large numbers of players. My opinion is that the transfer table as it exists currently is suitable for use as a template, and for application across club season pages. Domeditrix (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Having just looked back at past Man Utd season articles, I've noticed that positions have been included in the transfer tables since I've been editing here, so I'm currently undecided on the issue. However, I have changed my !vote above to say that if positions are included, I don't think they should be hyperlinked. Having actually thought about the issue, I actually don't think positions are that useful to include, but I'm happy to go with the community on that one. For the record, though, I don't want these wikitables to be converted into templates, although I'm happy for a MOS to be put together for people to refer back to on how to structure future articles. – PeeJay 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've posted on talk pages of a lot of clubs in an effort to get eyes onto this discussion, so hopefully more discourse will help form a consensus. If there are no further objections though, do you think it would be okay for this table to be added to the WikiProject Club seasons page as a guide for future articles – or would that require this being raised somewhere else first? Domeditrix (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely should go there at the conclusion of this discussion. – PeeJay 22:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Having followed the link added to the current Crystal Palace season. My thoughts : Loans : separate tables, with mild preference for Loans in before Transfers out, as I think this information is more relevant to the season; Colours : I prefer standard colours; No squad numbers or contract length columns (or contract renewals); General positions, no links; Undisclosed fees as footnotes (with reliable source of course); non-sortable; Free-agent listed as such, former / new team as footnote; Transfer date as contract start / end date. Spike 'em (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for the input, and glad you saw the note in the talk page. So (aside from the the page currently having transfers out before loans in), are you supportive of the style used in 2018–19 Exeter City F.C. season#Transfers? Footnotes are used to denote the previous club of free agents, the current clubs of players that had a registration gap (between 30 June and signing for a new club). Domeditrix (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Could anybody clarify whether a player that signs a pre-contract has their registration transferred from their previous club, or whether the player is unregistered by the former club and then registered by the new club as two separate actions? Essentially, is it more accurate to write in a transfer table that Allan McGregor signed for Rangers F.C. from Hull City A.F.C., or that he signed as a free agent, with his previous club (listed in a footnote) being Hull City? Domeditrix (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members

I've made some progress in updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members list - moving 158 people from 'active members' to 'former members' (people who haven't contributed to any page related to the project in over a year) after checking the activity of 340 people. It appears that the list hasn't been updated in over five years. There's still around 160 people to be checked. I've put two yellow rows on the table to indicate where I've checked up to - anything within the two rows still have to be checked. If people are able to check some people's activity and them to the correct list, it would be appreciated. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ascoli Calcio 1898 F.C.

The club had changed its name again, which is more similar to the old name "Ascoli Calcio 1898". However, i can't find a new logo with clean background, which this one is too small and this one had diamond background. Anyone good at photoshop to crop the logo? Matthew_hk tc 13:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused I see them registered with Ascoli Calcio 1898 FC SpA in the footer on their website. In what way did you say their name has changed? Govvy (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The club was named "Ascoli Picchio F.C. 1898" in the past few years. Matthew_hk tc 13:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Italian wiki article seems to have the new logo in much better quality. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done upload by someone else despite i can't find the source file exactly on the official club website. Matthew_hk tc 09:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Official match reports with inaccurate goal times recorded

Hello all, relatively new editor. I was contributing the article for 2018 Copa do Brasil Final Stages and noticed that two goals scored in a match last night were recorded at 35' and 90+3'. These timestamps are taken from the official match report published by the CBF, the organizers of the Brazilian Cup. Every other match report on the internet recorded the goals (accurately) as occurring at 38' and 90+4' - source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4. In fact the official CBF match reports have many goal times in this tournament inaccurately recorded, usually off by 1 minute. This particular match was broadcast in Brazil by Globo and SporTV. YouTube videos of both broadcasts (Globo link, and SporTV link) show the goals scored at 37:54 1st half and 48:42 2nd half (93:42 when converted to 90-minute time). What to do in this situation? Zac ary (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Zac ary The CBP site is a primary source, WP:PSTS, using the secondary sources if prefered anyway. I would change all these to the correct minutes if the evidence shows that is true, in case of an edit conflict please notify the other editors of this discussion as well. CRwikiCA talk 02:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: stating the data from primary source directly is not a original research. Also, off by 1 minute is not a major problem. Matthew_hk tc 08:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I'm not saying that it is OR. Merely to take the correct minute, even when the exact match report states it differently and wrongly. I do not know the context, I assume this is not subject to edit warring in that case the argument can be refined. CRwikiCA talk 01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say using official match report verse secondary source, is debatable. Most often the referee and/or the competition regulator awarded different person as goalscorer (either changing from own goal to goal scored from opposite team member). The time in the official match report is the time recorded from the watch on the hand of the referee, verse live commentary that the timestamp was rely on the clock in the stadium or just came from nowhere. Matthew_hk tc 09:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's very rare that there is a significance over when the goal was scored. However, I don't really see the official results being used as a problem. Just because secondary sources also mention the times, doesn't make the original times less valid.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean it would be a lame edit war for prefer secondary source than primary source for just 1 minute offset. I personally prefer primary source but not sure the consensus of this project. Matthew_hk tc 09:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be the lamest possible edit war. But always go with the right minute. Goal scorer is more open for discussion sometimes. But limiting it to the question of the topic, does anyone suggest knowingly using the wrong time when the official match report is clearly wrong? CRwikiCA talk 02:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How would we define "clearly wrong"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA:@Matthew hk:I agree. I don't plan to go through and change the times or sources of the match reports. The only instance that really caught my eye was the main one I mentioned, where the recorded goal time was off by 3 minutes. Zac ary (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Like the example in the first post, when no reasonable person can argue that the official match report is right. CRwikiCA talk 02:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

even the secondary source use 37 (globoesporte, the ref on 2018 Copa do Brasil Final Stages) or 38 (UOL). It seem fine to use primary source 35' as it still a max 3 min offset, not >4.5 minute or 10% time of a half time. Matthew_hk tc 10:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Assistant manager / coach

I was wondering if we should add the assistant manager or coach in the club infobox or not. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. The infobox is meant to be a brief summary and this would be information creep. Number 57 10:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with N57. GiantSnowman 10:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's important information, but not for the overall club. Certainly not the infobox. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur - not a key club fact -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in the club infobox, but in the current squad template? Asturkian (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No and no. ;) Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, we have chairman and manager, I thought one more line with a number two might of been okay, but you peeps obviously don't like that idea. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a good idea either. – PeeJay 11:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile MLS squad temlates have them --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure MLS has been discussed before but agree they should not be in the squad navbox. GiantSnowman 16:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nilton Terroso

Is currently on AfD list, however it's been cleanup with good work form User:Quite A Character since the nomination and I feel it now passes GNG, just need additional comments on the AfD. Be much appeciated. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New Serie A logo

Hi. Could someone with more experience with images please update the logo at Serie A to the new logo seen at [18]? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Women's football clubs seasons

I'd like to create season articles about women's football clubs, but it would be frustrating as heck to have them all deleted so I'm bringing the topic here. Seeing how all club women's football except for a few American and English teams seems to be considered irrelevant in Wikipedia in freaking 2018 is ridiculous and rather discouraging, but by now I know trying to address this unfair mindset here is a waste of time and energy, so let's get to the point. Does 2017–18 Valencia CF Femenino season pass the general notability guideline? I'm pretty sure it does.Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If it gets sufficient coverage in third-party sources, then yes. – PeeJay 12:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but where is the bar? Is there consensus that this quantity and quality of sources equals sufficient coverage, or someone saying "no, it doesn't" may have the article deleted? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia. These articles should be treated the same as every other article on wikipedia, that doesn't have a project specific guideline for notability. The sources need the articles to pass WP:GNG. I'd say start with the most notable, and work backwards. Perhaps when we have some articles up, it may be more prudent to have a consensus on if these articles almost always meet WP:GNG, so we can add something to WP:NFOOTY. If a lot of these articles aren't deemed to be notable, it defeats the object. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's good advice, but I don't think it's necessary. Valencia isn't as international powerhouses in women's football as Lyon, Wolfsburg, Bayern, Chelsea, PSG... yet anyone can find plenty of sources and news coverage about it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a wide variety of sources for that article listed, so I can't see why it wouldn't pass the notability criteria. My guidance would be to ensure that there are a wide variety of sources from the get-go, or people will try to snipe at it because it's women playing the beautiful game instead of men, and that's threatening for some reason that nobody can really verbalise. Domeditrix (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting the relevant subject-specific guideline is WP:NSEASONS; this is interpreted as requiring a league to be fully-professional for a club season to pass it (this is a consensus reached over many AfDs). However, this doesn't preclude WP:GNG being met. Number 57 21:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly bring sexism into this. However, a lower league women's club is likely to recieve much less press coverage than the male counterpart. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm positive you can find plenty of news coverage for almost any women's team playing in the national top tier, at least in Western Europe. Certainly not as much as with the top-tier male teams, but still plenty of it. If we were in 1998 or 2008 it well might be otherwise, but nowadays most sports media cover women's club competitions. For example, Marca has published about 50 women's football news and articles in this past month. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Pakhyakorienne - That might be your answer then. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but what I wanted to make sure is if the level of sourcing (in variety, quantity, quality and focus) in that article I created (2017–18 Valencia CF Femenino season) is enough to ensure it doesn't get erased. If there's consensus that it passes the GNG and an eventual PROD/AfD won't likely have it deleted, that's a relief. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

- The amount of sourcing in the article isn't what's important, it's what amount of coverage the subject has. Sadly, I doubt there will be a cut and dry notability guideline for women's teams, so they will have to meet WP:GNG. However, there should be no reason not to have these articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant with sourcing, the coverage as reflected in the sources. Anyway, I'm glad to see that the community seems to be okay it so I'll start working in more season articles like this. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Belgium: a new league or just a new name?

Should Belgian Second Division be a distinct article from Belgian First Division B? According to the articles, the former was replaced by the latter in 2016 (along with some structural changes)—so, are these truly distinct topics or the same topic by two different names? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's the same topic. The final reference in Belgian Second Division#History suggests that it was restructuring, as opposed to a new league being created, although the reference is in French (a language I only have some basic knowledge of) so I might be miss understanding something. Clyde1998 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed merging the two articles — see the discussion here. If there is consensus (or no objections) after 1–2 weeks, I will go ahead and perform the merge and associated cleanup (some templates and categories will likely also need to be merged). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed round-by-round module

There are currently dozens of different "fb rbr t pos" templates (see, e.g., Template:Fb rbr t pos#See also). unfortunately, every time the cut-offs change and/or classification changes, a new template is made for the new scheme. to solve this problem, I have started a generic round-by-round module which

1. Allows for arbitrary colouring based on position or position ranges
2. Requires specification of the colouring only once per table
3. Automatically generated a legend when needed

if you are interested in seeing a comparison of the new module with the old templates, see User:Frietjes/rbr. I am interested in gaining feedback before deploying this in article space. or, if this is a horrible idea, we can scrap it altogether. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I like this. Would allow us to do away with the various templates every time a league's structure changes - making it a lot more versatile than the existing template. Clyde1998 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 5 Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. The numerous templates are confusing and a module should make things much more flexible and easier to maintain.   Jts1882 | talk  15:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered using TemplateStyles? For some of the customisation, using different CSS classes might be a convenient method.   Jts1882 | talk  15:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

sure, could be useful for the top row heading and team column as a way to reduce the amount of html, but the general module concept would be the same. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Association footballers not categorized by position

As some may notice in the next few days, a bot has begun adding all footballers who are missing a position category to Category:Association footballers not categorized by position. The bot (RonBot) indexes most of the category tree under Category:Association football players, and categorises the articles which are missing from Category:Association football players by position.

However, not all articles added to the category may actually be a person. If the article should not be in the category tree, check/fix what categories the article is in (or what categories its categories are in) before removing "not categorized by position". If the article is supposed to be categorised under players (i.e. List of foreign Premier League players), then "not categorized by position" should be replaced with Category:Association football player non-biographical articles for the bot to ignore. While almost all non-biographical articles have been categorised for the bot to ignore, a few could have been missed.

If the article is a biography, but not an association football player, then check/fix the categories which the player is under. For example, the person might play a different sport in another multi-sport club. In this case, the player should be added to the appropriate category for the sport (e.g. Category:FC Barcelona Bàsquet players) or removed altogether if none exists (or one could be created if necessary). The person could also be a manager, but is incorrectly categorised as a player. For this, the player category should be removed.

Let me know if there are any questions. Any help to begin properly categorising these players by position would be greatly appreciated! If you display hidden categories (go to Preferences > Appearance and under "Advanced options" check Show hidden categories), HotCat can be used to quickly replace "not categorized by position" with the correct position category. Many thanks to Ronhjones for creating the bot! S.A. Julio (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position is still being populated, now 18,000+ articles which need a position added. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a quick and semi-automatic way of fixing the categories based on the position given in a player's infobox without using AWB? Unfortunately, AWB only works on the Mac with virtualisation and I'd like to avoid that. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure, WP:JWB might work for that. The category has now finished filling, and currently has 39,000+ articles. I'll try and run AWB for very basic positions (i.e. Midfielder in infobox), though link formatting really varies on articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. That'd be neat! Robby.is.on (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Women's Pichichi and Zamora Trophies

Marca has been awarding the Pichichi Trophy to the top scorer of the Primera División Femenina since the 2014–15 season, and also the Zamora Trophy since the 2016–17 one, so it should okay to include the female winners in both articles, right? I can think of these ways of doing it:

• Fitting the Winners and Statistics sections within a Male Trophy section as subsections, and then create a Female Trophy section below.
• Creating Male Trophy and Female Trophy subsections within the Winners section, and M.T. and F.T. tables within the Statistics section's subsections (Wins by player/club/country).
• Including them in the existing tables like this:

Season		Player	Team	Games played	Goals conceded	Coefficient
2016–17	M	Jan Oblak	Atlético Madrid	29	21	0.72
	F	Christiane Endler	Valencia	23	9	0.39
2017–18	M	Jan Oblak	Atlético Madrid	36	20	0.56
	F	Sandra Paños	Barcelona	27	11	0.40

Which one is considered the most appropiate way of doing it? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#FOOTYN,_NFOOTY_and_sports_teams.

I was under the impression that football club notability was covered by NFOOTBALL, but as noted in this Village pump post, it is not. In a few recent AfDs, several editors have cited participation in a national cup competition as providing a presumption of notability, and in general (at least for the competition proper) I think the sources will be there. Should we seek input at NSPORTS to adopt a SNG for football (and other) clubs? Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been a couple of discussions at NSPORTS recently. My input on both occasions was that I don't think a club SNG is going to be particularly easy to draw up, as each country will have a different cut-off point. I've commented at the village pump discussion along these lines, but also mentioned that if there are objections to people referring to FOOTYN in the absence of an SNG (and I'm fairly sure everyone is aware it's only an essay), perhaps something could be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes in cases where we've developed a clear consensus over many AfDs. Number 57 11:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that creating a notability guideline for them competing in a national cup is particularly farfetched. I can't think there are many teams that would pass that criteria, but not pass WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

An obvious example where it wouldn't work would be France, where more than eight thousand clubs enter the Coupe de France. Number 57 11:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The French cup is regionalised in its early rounds, so you could set qualification for the "national" rounds as a cut-off point. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The same would also apply to Australia for the current cup competition. Hack (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

- Indeed. Regional levels of the tournament don't count. There are around 800 for the FA Cup, and all are considered notable, if the team qualifies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the FA Cup somewhat regionalised in its early rounds? You wouldn't see a local team from Cornwall travelling up to northern Northumberland in the Extra Preliminary Round, for example, or even probably anywhere further than Dorset. – PeeJay 22:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

- So, is the only thing that makes a team like, for instance Lingfield F.C. viable, is that it passes GNG? I'm suprised that any team couldn't make an argument for inclusion via GNG, if you looked deep enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Parent clubs in career stats tables

Chelsdog (talk · contribs) is being a nuisance at Jacob Maddox and removing the current Chelsea season from the career stats table (he is on loan at Cheltenham). Please can somebody have a word? GiantSnowman 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, it does seem pointless to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Without it, how do we know where he is on loan from? Including the parent club is standard, it's in the MOS. GiantSnowman 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He has never registered as a player at his parent club for that season, and has been loaned out before the season start. Then how he could have any statistics counted at his parent club?? It's a very simple matter of logic. Infobox has stated where he is on loan from already. No need to mention it again in the Statistics. P.S. If leaving any constructive word here would make me a nuisance and pest, then just ignore me. Yeap and reverting all my edits and ban my account. That's it. Chelsdog (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's in the MOS. You are editing against long-standing consensus. You were engaged in disruptive edit warring. You have been told about this previously. GiantSnowman 16:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe the MOS needs to be revised. I don't think we need the stats table to tell where the loan is from. That information is readily available elsewhere, at minimum in the infobox and usually also in the lede and the body of the article. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Using a player's registration as a reason to not include parent club statistics doesn't really make sense to me, it looks incomplete without them included in my opinion. Also, as GiantSnowman mentioned, it shows who the player was on loan from at the time of any such loan spell. If the infobox suffices, why mention it anywhere else in the article then? R96Skinner (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said the infobox suffices. Like Spike 'em I find empty rows detract from the usefulness of the stats tables. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeap if a player was loaned in five seasons, do we still need five rows of empty stats with all zero at parent clubs? They're quite disturbing and misleading. Chelsdog (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Disturbing"?! Gosh. GiantSnowman 19:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I also don't see the need to include empty rows of stats where a player is never in the first team squad. The text in the article should tell you were a player was on loan from. I have done the same to Ryan Inniss as I didn't realise that the implication from the template article having blank lines meant this was a MOS consensus to include such information. Spike 'em (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, add a footnote to the table saying where the player was on load from. I have done this to the aforementioned article Spike 'em (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminding myself about this, I did look into other articles at the time, and it seems to vary based on parent club. For example, those on loan from Chelsea seemed to not have the 0 lines, but those from Man Utd did, so I guess different sets of editors do it in different ways. Spike 'em (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

See Patrick Bamford, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Kurt Zouma & Tammy Abraham (Chelsea) compared to Timothy Fosu-Mensah, Stephy Mavididi, Marc Bola (Man Utd and Arsenal). Spike 'em (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask yourself why the Chelsea examples are different to every other club (clue: it's one editor OWNing them...) GiantSnowman 19:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The row of zero stats does seem unnecessary. The example in the MOS also shows rows that aren't in chronological order, which is a bit strange. However, the text of the article shouldn't rely on information in the infobox. When I look at these summaries of player stats I rarely read through the article so having the information in the table makes sense. A simple compromise would be to add "(on loan from Template United)" instead of just "(loan)" in the table.   Jts1882 | talk  19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If we're taking votes, I would +1 the above suggestion. Crowsus (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, I would also suggest a note reading something like "(subsidiary of Template United)" if the famous Tim Template had played for Template Prospects, the B team of Template United, as that is also a kind of loan from the main club but such entries may not be obvious from the team name. For example, the stats table for Kepa Arrizabalaga shows he appeared in the adult leagues for CD Basconia and Bilbao Athletic before Athletic Bilbao, but was still a contracted player of the latter pro club), but without a label it might look like he was playing for two separatre lower division clubs to readers unfamiliar with the Spanish system (such as the thousands of Chelsea fans from around the world who have checked his page in the last few days). Maybe such labelling would cause more confusion tho. Crowsus (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would omit it when the player was transferred before the first official game. Kante4 (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So we've gone from "we need a less detailed career stats table, the info is already present in the infobox" to "we need info in the career stats table that's not in the infobox"?! GiantSnowman 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

? I said that in the stats table it should be left out. Kante4 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The statistics table should be more detailed than the brief statistic summary in the infobox. Saying "oh well the parent club is listed in the infofox so people can check the stats there, don't bother including them in the statistics table" is a bizarre argument.--EchetusXe 16:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, and am against changing the MOS. 'You can get the full picture by looking elsewhere and piecing it together yourself' isn't good logic for an encyclopaedia. To the untrained eye, it makes it seem as though a player with a lot of loan spells is actually a journeyman – it's misleading. With this proposed change, Harry Kane would appear to have begun his career with Millwall, before moving to Tottenham the following season – this despite the fact that Kane had been with Spurs since 2004. It becomes even stupider should a player have multiple loan spells in a single season (example: Adam Armstrong). Domeditrix (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean look at this - three loan spells for two parent clubs. It's a mess without the parent clubs, very confusing. GiantSnowman 10:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Add a footnote or expand the (loan) to (on loan from Parent Club) then. What is more worrying is that article makes no mention of him being at Celtic or Peterhead in the main body of the article but lists both in the stats table. Spike 'em (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

An earlier version did - removed in a HISTMERGE, now restored. Regardless, not a reason to change MOS. GiantSnowman 11:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Xerez Deportivo FC

While reading this article I removed a huge unsourced section about a "motto" which reproduced it verbatim, and it's a little longer than "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum". This was reverted by Ikercasillas2008.

First, this all fails WP:V, there is no reference. Second, this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This looks more like a book of chants rather than a motto, unless a motto is 3,000 characters long and includes words such as OEOEOÉ OEOEOÉ. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed, it's unreferenced. Aside from that, there was a coat of arms from the city of Jerez de la Frontera, also out. MYS77 ^✉ 01:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 Indonesia national football team results and the previous years pages listed in the Template:Indonesia NFT results

Do the things happen in the page are permitted? Because it does not exclusively contain the Indonesia national football team, which I believe is the senior team. Instead, it contains much more about the men's U-23, U-19, and U-16 team. Even worse, it contains women's (or girls') U-15 team. As far as I know, if the article title says (year/decade(s)) (country) national football team results), then it should only contains the senior team things happened in the said year or decade(s). For instances, 2018 Japan national football team, Belgium national football team results – 2010s, England national football team results (2000–19), France national football team results (2000–present), and Germany national football team results (2000–present). In my opinion, the articles' content should be in an article like 2018–19 in English football, but need to add the league, cup, and Asian competitions results. Should the underage teams (both men's and women's) results be erased from the current page and moved to a page like that, with addition a copy of the senior results and club competitions results as well? – Flix11 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For me I think their should be something like the 2018–19 in Australian soccer as that is what this page is trying to do. So yeah I agree so change that to the 2018 in Indonesian soccer as the name title. Animation is developing 03:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Regis Shield

We got an AfD going for WBA's Regis Shield, I was wondering if the article goes, if it should be redirect to West Brom's article or maybe Cyrille Regis as a legacy note? Govvy (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the match involves two of his former clubs, I would say redirect to the Cyrille Regis article. --Jameboy (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, wasn't too sure, it does seem to be related to Cyrille Regis, and there is no indication it would be played again. Govvy (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying

User Theurgist wants to include the "goals" of the two awarded matches Serbia-Albania and Montenegro-Russia into the goals scored tally in the infobox. I think they do not belong there as they were no real goals and UEFA don't count it as goals either: [19].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to include the goals. And the matches too. Please see the page history. --Theurgist (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources like UEFA aren't counting them, then neither should we. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

UEFA is sometimes counting them. --Theurgist (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, UEFA never counts them in goal scoring statistics! It would be better, you correct the error you made in the article yourself.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You did already say, rightly, that the "Team statistics" page doesn't count the awarded goals in the two matches. I did reply that the "Group statistics" does count them.

A similar case occurred during the 2012 qualification: Italy 3–0 (awd.) Serbia. And in UEFA's website, it's exactly the same: "Team statistics" lists Italy as having scored 17 goals (not 20) and Serbia as having conceded 9 (not 12), while "Group statistics" says there were 74 goals (not 71) in Group C.

So, it's not that "UEFA never counts them", but rather, UEFA is inconsistent.

This is not the first time Wikipedians have discussed quirks in that website. One that I discovered recently is the standings of a 1996 qualifying group. They list Albania ahead of Wales based on goal difference, ignoring the fact that the head-to-head records were already in use as the first tiebreaker then, a change prompted by the infamous Spain 12–1 Malta match. In our article, Wales is above Albania.

And at the end of the day, isn't this the very point of awarding goals: so they should be counted as such, even though they were never actually scored? The goals didn't ultimately matter as the outcomes in the groups in question were always decided by points, but they could and would have mattered a lot if applying the tiebreakers had been called for. How come they should count within the group standings, but not in overall statistics? --Theurgist (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, when a match is forfeited and one of the teams is awarded a 5-0 victory that score actually counts for the group/league table. As for claiming that some player(s) actually scored these goals, that is incorrect practice. Otherwise I can't see any issue with counting them in general standings.Tvx1 18:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Allan Okello

Newly created article perhaps in the process of being improved, but I'm wondering if this person meets WP:NFOOTY or whether it might be best to suggest WP:DRAFTIFY until WP:N can be better established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: This is one of a couple of articles by a new editor and has been moved by them to draft and back again. It is not clear what team he plays for and whether it would get him past NFOOTY. I suspect not... The editor also removed the notability tags left by Marchjuly and has done similar things with their other articles. This page is currently in worse shape than ever. Eagleash (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Not notable so delete or draftify - also leave a word with the editor regarding notability. GiantSnowman 11:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's already been moved back and forth at least once. I suspect if it's moved to draft he will just move it back again. Already been 'warned' re notability (amongst other things). Eagleash (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems he plays for Kampala_Capital_City_Authority_FC, a top tier Ugandan team. The fact that the article doesn't mention this suggests it is not ready, even if notable. The player has participated in the Afrcian Champions League (link).   Jts1882 | talk  12:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • TBF the article does actually mention that he plays for that team, but I can understand how it could be lost among all the weirdly formatted (and in some cases completely irrelevant) tables......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The club he plays for was added to the page in this edit just after Chris's comment. Up until then it was only possible to figure who he played for by scrutinising the sources. The Ugandan top tier is not fully professional (see WP:FPL) though the African Champ League might help but transfermkt is not regarded as reliable. Eagleash (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It was actually in there before that, but it was hidden in one of the weird tables......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it and deleted the rest of whatever that attempt at a table was meant to be. It took some finding!Spike 'em (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tagged for PROD. GiantSnowman 15:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

End date for season-long loans

What should the standard end-date for season-long loans be? I notice e.g. Sead Hakšabanović has 1 July 2019 on the main article, but 31 May 2019 on the season article for West Ham. Nzd (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been putting 'end of season', due to seasons not finishing at consistent times – and it being impossible to work out when a club's season will end. As an example, while the regular 2017–18 EFL League Two season ended on 21 April 2018, Exeter City F.C. made the play-off final, so their two on-loan players stayed until 28 May (one scoring in the match). Domeditrix (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the generally accepted date is 30 June, which is the usual end date for all contracts, although I know some players do return as soon as the team they're on loan to have played their last game. Perhaps "end of season" is the best unless a specific end date is known. – PeeJay 12:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that 'end of season' is fine. GiantSnowman 12:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with "PeeJay2K3". Some footballer in England returned to the mother club as early as the last game of the league and starting some activities with the mother club. Unless the press release and secondary source state in specific "30 June", end of season is a sufficient wording for the context of the loan. Matthew_hk tc 13:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, loans completed at the 'end of the season' in England usually finish on 31 May as opposed to 30 June (when most standard contracts expire). However, as others have noted, some clubs may return their loan players when they've finished their league season as opposed to on a specific date, also different leagues may have different finishing points. I think 'End of Season' is best, unless there's a specific date noted. Clyde1998 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've have now adjusted the two articles accordingly. Nzd (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Gautam Kalpoe

Hi everyone. It would appear Gautam Kalpoe fails our notability guidelines. Prior to my cleanup the infobox stated he made one appearance for Sparta Rotterdam but I've been unable to find proof for that. Should I tag the article for PROD? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

PROD it - no appearances for any of the professional clubs he played for as far as I can see (checked Soccerway, VI, and World Football). GiantSnowman 10:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention for (English) football clubs

A discussion has been started here on how football clubs are named. There is also an ongoing discussion on A.F.C. Bournemouth on the use of dots in the article title. Cheers, Number 57 19:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)