Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 131

Archive 125

←

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

→

Archive 135

Match fixing in association football

In my opinion, the article titles regarding match fixing (listed in the {{Match fixing in association football}} template) should be uniformed to one standard.

This is the myriad of formats we have at the moment:

1. [Year] [Country] [football scandal] (2015 Italian football scandal)
2. [Year] [Country] [betting scandal] (1964 British betting scandal)
3. [Year] [Country] [football betting scandal] (1915 British football betting scandal)
4. [Year] [Country] [match fixing scandal] (2013 Lebanese match fixing scandal)
5. [Year] [League] [match fixing controversy] (1999 Jia-A League match-fixing controversy; best to use match fixing and not match-fixing as that's where the article is located on Wikipedia)
6. [Country] [football match fixing scandal] (Brazilian football match-fixing scandal)
7. [Country] [football bribery scandal] (French football bribery scandal)
8. [Country] [sports corruption scandal] (Turkish sports corruption scandal)
9. [League] [scandal] [(Year)] (Bundesliga scandal (1971))
10. [Common name] [Year (if more than one instance)] (Totonero 1980, Calciopoli)

As long as we chose one and stick to it I'm fine either way. In my personal opinion, common names should remain that way (for example Calciopoli or Caso Genoa), and if there has been more than one instance of it to put the year at the front (1980 Totonero, not Totonero 1980). As for the rest, it would use [Year] [Country] [football match fixing scandal]. We need to include "football" as we can't assume the sport, and "match fixing scandal" seems to be the best option. So something like "2013 Lebanese football match fixing scandal" should work. I don't know if we should be using the adjective or the noun for the countries (Lebanese or Lebanon?), given that we use the latter for national teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, I noticed that template a while back, when I was editing French football bribery scandal. I tend not to put the year unless it's ambiguous (and there isn't another French football bribery scandal to my knowledge). But happy to get consensus to mass change articles to be consistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you regarding the year. But the year itself is usually part of the common name. For example, the event is known in Lebanon as the "2013 scandal", "2013 football scandal" etc. Anyway, in my opinion, we can chose between two options:

1. 2013 Lebanese football match fixing scandal / 2013 Lebanon football match fixing scandal
2. 2013 Lebanese football scandal / 2013 Lebanon football scandal

The first is more complete, however having both "match fixing" and "scandal" may be a bit redundant, since footballing scandals are always about match fixing, bribery or betting. So both options work fine with me, as long as we find a consensus. Also, maybe having the country as a noun and not as an adjective is better (see the various national team pages). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, not all betting scandals involve the fixing of matches, which to my mind implies that players were playing in a manner to ensure a result that was favourable to bettors (or referees were calling the game to a similar end). Some scandals simply involve players betting on matches not involving themselves, which may explain the disparity in article titles. – PeeJay 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we should uniform them all to "[Year] [Country] [football scandal]", removing the "match fixing". E.g. "2013 Lebanese football scandal". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"football scandal" sounds too vague to me, I think it better to use a more descriptive title if possible. If that means having different descriptors, then so be it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with [Year] [Country] [football scandal] unless there is a COMMONNAME rationale against. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em, "match fixing scandal" is a clearer and more descriptive title to clarify the scope of the article. But each article should be looked at specifically to find the COMMONNAME, for example in Germany the 1971 scandal is commonly known as the "Bundesliga-Skandal" [2]. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The main point of this discussion is the fact that all of these articles are in the same template ({{Match fixing in association football}}). For me, these are the possible solutions:

1. All of the articles at [Year] [Country] [football match fixing scandal], and leave the template unchanged;
2. All of the articles at [Year] [Country] [football scandal], and change the template to "Scandals in association football"; or
3. [Year] [Country] [football] [X] [scandal], with [X] being one of "match fixing", "bribery", etc., and change the template to "Scandals in association football"

Also, keep the various common names as they are (Totonero, Calciopoli, etc.). In my opinion, either the first or the second are the most plausible solutions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the appearance of an article in a navbox should be used to guide what that article's title is, so if there are to be any changes, it should be to the navbox title (I'm ambivalent on that point). If the title of that is changed, then we'd need to consider if other articles that aren't in any way related to match fixing, but are still "scandals", need to be added. Spike 'em (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at all the articles listed in the navbox and think it is reasonably named, as all of the articles relate to attempts to alter what happened in football matches. "Scandals in association football" is too wide ranging a title for this set of articles. Spike 'em (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So, do you think we should keep the same format for all articles ([Year] [Country] [football match fixing scandal]) or have a more dynamic [Year] [Country] [football] [X] [scandal], changing X based on what the scandal entailed (bribery, match fixing, etc.)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Boring but accurate grammar point: Whatever you do with titles in general, if the title uses "match fixing" as an adjective, it gets hyphenated. So "a scandal related to match fixing" is a "match-fixing scandal". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, didn't notice that before. I've amended the current titles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent deaths without articles yet

• Raymond Van Gestel, 5 caps for Belgium[3]
• Willy Quadackers, 1 cap for the Netherlands
• Karel Beyers, 1 cap for Belgium[4]
• Ahmed El Mansouri, Moroccan international and Olympian[5]
• Ton Bakhuis, Dutch futsal player, played the World Cup final in 1989[6]

I hope this is useful for someone here. Fram (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Fram:, I've actually just created an article on Quadackers and will create the rest now. GiantSnowman 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Created stubs about the Belgian players. However, I am unsure about Ahmed El Mansouri - he is not listed at NFT or at Football at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Morocco. I also don't think Bakhuis is perhaps notable, futsal players don't tend to be. GiantSnowman 09:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The only El-Mansouri who has competed at the Olympics is Abdel Ghani El-Mansouri in 1964, according to Sports Reference (who are good on having an article on literally every Olympian). And he isn't listed in the squad at Morocco at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Football either. Wonder if the news articles is confused with that El-Mansouri? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect he only playing in the qualifiers for the 1972 Summer Olympics. The FRMF also says he played for Morocco at the 1971 Mediterranean Games, but according to this, Morocco was disqualified and all of its results were annulled (even if they were full internationals, which seems unlikely). I don't think there is enough to make him notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure as this article from 2001 suggests he was a Morocco international. I don't have access to the full article and Liberation doesn't keep articles from over 10 years ago online. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking (and creating) these. I see news reports about the death of Innokenti Samokhvalov as well; but last year he didn't meet NFOOTY yet, so no idea if this has changed since then.[7]

And Noureddine Diwa, Tunisian footballer (champion in the 1956–57 Tunisian National Championship and second-highest scorer that year); Olympian in 1960 and 23 times international, so (if correct) clearly notable.[8] Fram (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting Diwa article now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! See also the quite long French article for more info. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Ton Bakhuis is notable as his deaths at the Dutch main newspapers de Telegraaf, AD; and many other sources including but not all De Stentor, Voorburgsdagblad, Brabants Dagblad, PZC. Also the KNVB had it as a news item: onsoranje.nl. And I found some old newspapers mentioning him: 1979, 1980 and 1986. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:USM Alger

Someone else want to deal with this guy, he clearly doesn't want to read WP:ACCESS, MOS:COLOUR. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, he has a point. Hundreds (if not thousands) of other clubs have coloured navboxes (e.g. {{Juventus F.C.}}, {{FC Shakhtar Donetsk}}). Number 57 19:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. Even national teams' navboxes are coloured ({{Lebanon national football team}}, {{Belgium national football team}}). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that WP:OSE is a decent argument in favour of unreadable (to me, anyway) red on black... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There are other issues with the template other than colours (which, as pointed out above, are standard in these navboxes). GiantSnowman 19:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't read the headings, I can't read {{FC Shakhtar Donetsk}} properly, that's really hard to see, I can make out the Belgium one, but that also violates MOS:COLOR, Juventus one doesn't violate MOS:COLOR nor does the Lebanon one. Govvy (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

To Struway2, I think the point is consistency – if colours are allowed on other prominent templates, it's only natural that it will cause issues if someone removes them from another. Either colours should be allowed on these templates or they shouldn't. It's not something I have a great deal of knowledge on (I have no idea why some violate MOS:COLOUR and some don't). However, if colours are allowed but red/black is problematic, an alternative combination could have been tried rather than removing them completely. AC Milan play in black and red but their template is red and white. Number 57 20:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Govvy: those are practically unreadable. There are clear MOS rules about colour contrast, so if those navboxes don't pass those, then they should be edited straight away. Spike 'em (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm also with Govvy. We don't need templates that match the team colors; we need templates that are readable to our readers – all of our readers. I have no color blindness or eyesight issues, and I find red-on-black to be barely readable. If that means not having team-colored-templates anywhere, and instead having all templates be color-accessible, then that's what needs to be done. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. The template in question is poorly legible even to me so it must be incomprehensible to people with sight issues. I'll change it back to the MOS:COLOUR version shortly unless anyone objects greatly. If there are others that violate the guidelines, then they should simply be changed as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is also a more specific MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR which states Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable. These navboxes tend to disguise links in the title by colouring them the same as much unlinked text in the rest of the navbox. Spike 'em (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Would User:Black Kite/USM be a compromise that meets WP:ACCESS, then? It passes the colour checker. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO that looks much easier to read. I think we should be sticking to black text and light background or white text and dark background, as they're the easiest to see. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's much better, i.e clearly readable :) Thank you Black Kite for taking the trouble. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. We should ensure any colours in navboxes is limited to 'light on dark' or 'dark on light' to avoid such issues. That is already done at {{A.F.C. Bournemouth}} which avoids the club's main colour of black & red and {{Inter Milan}} which avoids black & blue. GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made that version live. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Would someone be able to take a look at all the Norwich templates in Category:Norwich City F.C. templates. The yellow probably needs toning down, and the text should be black I guess? And would there be a way of collating all football templates that use colours, so between us we can go through them and make them compliant? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed Shakhtar and Belgium, what do you think to something like User:Black Kite/FTEMP for Norwich? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think these changes are all a step in the right direction. The red-black and black-blue combinations were terrible. Following the guideline that plain text is black or white and using the team colours for the backgrounds in different parts of the template seems to work well in all the above cases. There is good contrast and the team colours are part of the template. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite Norwich one looks good. It keeps the yellow and green, but is actually readable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done all of the ones in the NCFC category. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What's the naming policy for foreign leagues?

I noticed all the Dutch leagues are written with capital first letters (e.g. Eerste Divisie). As a page title it's fine, but within a phrase they are in Dutch not written with capitals (so eerste divisie). For the simple reason they're not regarded as proper nouns. It's different story if you talk about the Keuken Kampioen divisie. Keuken Kampioen is the name of the league sponsor, so a proper noun. --Sb008 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, naming policies follow WP:COMMONNAME, meaning the English common name of whatever the subject is. So if in English the league is (incorrectly by Dutch grammatical standards) written with capital letters, then we should keep to that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Coefficient ranking

I think that the coefficient rankings should be included on all major team pages.

Also some of these need updating to the current ranking as of 13 March 2020

yes	no
Real Madrid	PSG
Atlético Madrid	Liverpool
Benfica	Manchester United
Bayern Munich	Barcelona
Juventus	Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Manchester City
Arsenal
Sevilla
Borussia Dortmund
Tottenham Hotspur
Chelsea
Roma
Napoli
Olympique Lyonnais
Shakhtar Donetsk
Porto
Ajax
Saint Petersburg
Villarreal
Dynamo Kyiv

In addition to all that Wikipedia even has an article about it UEFA coefficient#UEFA team ranking

I rest my case REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

how do you define "major team"? Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say a team which regularly finishes in the top half of their respective top flight and has participated in a European competition (Europa League or the Champions League) in the past five years. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively we could just follow the list of teams that are in the references. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't think it is needed. Outside of the top 20 the list has little meaning. There is no connection to the teams two places up and down. It's equivalent to having a closest rating list in chess or tennis player articles. That's not done either. -Koppapa (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't think it's necessary. Number 57 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The UEFA club coefficient is the current standard method for determining seedings in European Competition, and has been for almost two decades. It is absolutely notable enough to be placed in articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: please use indentation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's notable at all. As Koppapa says, outside of the top clubs, it's irrelevant. That also creates the issue of how you define a top club. Are Arsenal considered one now that they haven't played in the Champions League for a few seasons? It doesn't detract from the article not being there, so I don't think it's necessary to include them. NapHit (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really not needed. Kante4 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That would result in the ranking being removed from the other articles which would probably create more problems then it would solve. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would create any problems removing it. Number 57 11:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's relative to find out who is above and below, but if we can update this with regularity, I don't see any reason not to include it in the infobox somewhere. As someone who follows qualification closely, I also don't find the "not important outside the top 20" persuasive. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Crystal Palace F.C.

I see no consensus about any of these change of years when they were formed on this talk page nor Talk:Crystal Palace F.C.. The year 1861 seems to be an amateur outfit and 1905 was the year they started to play domestic football where promotion and relegation were possible. The later year was also when they were founded. The later year should remain as it is instead of edit war to 1861. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The 1861 version is a separate club: Crystal Palace F.C. (1861). The modern club was formed nearly 30 years after the first one folded. Number 57 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article as this change seems to have been made at least five times today. Number 57 21:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The club today made a claim that the 2 clubs are actually the same, but until reliable secondary sources back this up then I agree that the article should remain as is. Spike 'em (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The claim has been reported in secondary sources, so I'm going to add a footnote to the formation date. Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Spike, the note which you added rather randomly appears below the squad list, not 100% sure why? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Took me a minute to work out, but it is because there is a stray {{notelist}} at that point in the article. I thought it was strange that it wasn't at the bottom, so I've changed its grouping. Spike 'em (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the clubs own website says the current club was founded in 1905 [9], However, all the article title Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) is kinda not right, it was never quite founded as a "football club" then, there was probably a slightly earlier date for the founding of "Crystal Palace Club", the primary sport was Cricket with football in the winter being started in 1861. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It reminds me a little of Barnes Rugby Football Club where they were founded in the 1900s but tried to claim the history of an older club of the same name. They may think it traces their lineage but there doesn't seem to be any connections between the two Palaces. If they do take that claim of being the oldest professional club seriously, I think Notts County might take them to court for false advertising! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read a lot about the subject before and I am pretty sure, the year should be changed to 1861. There are enough sources now. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources which report the foundation date of the current club as being 1861 (rather than sources just reporting on the club claiming it is 1861). As an example, I added this to the article, which is just reporting on the club claim, it does not actually endorse the claim being made. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW the 2 official club histories do not claim that the current club is a continuation of the 1861 establishment. Purkiss / Sands (1989) states that the original club was disbanded sometime after 1870 (the exact date appears unknown) and that a new club was not suggested until 1904. The FA did not agree to a club being owned by the company that owned the Cup Final venue (from 1895, finals were played at Crystal Palace) and in 1905 a new company was formed which hired the Crystal Palace 'stadium'. King (2011) states that the first club reached the FA Cup semi-final in 1872, played in the next four years of the competion and then 'disappeared'. A new company was formed in 1904/5, by local businessmen (with the approval of the Crystal Palace company) and the club began playing in the Southern League second division. Overall I think any connection is rather tenuous and I think the year of establishment should be maintained at 1905. Note: Sands is the recognised club historian and was involved in both publications. Eagleash (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We prefer current newer actual sources per WP:RS AGE. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide some newer RS that state that the current CPFC was formed in 1861 to support this? So far I have seen the club itself, which is WP:PRIMARY, and 1 book (which was used as the basis of their assertion) say this. The rest of the sources I've see are merely reports that the club has made this claim, not that it is necessarily true. Spike 'em (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so far *you* have merely made an unsupported statement and failed to supply *us* with anything to corroborate it. *We* prefer sources (period), preferably reliable ones. This feels a bit like whoever looks after the media at CPFC (not wonderfully reliable sometimes) looking for things on a slow news day. Eagleash (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a self-published book? at least, its Amazon page lists the publisher as Nielsen UK ISBN Store, which is a seller of ISBNs in quantities as low as one at a time. What we do prefer in our RS are actual RS, and we do need to take care when use self-published content, especally if the author has no known expertise in their field. See WP:USESPS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert on sources and I do not care if they are primary, secondary, tertiary and who published them. That is why I usually edit statistics as I don't have time or nerves for wikilawyering. I know a lot of clubs which chose founding years by themselves (not proven in secondary sources published by some renown corporations) and they are also used in wiki, but I won't be listing them, because you will present me with OTHERSTUFFEXIST and I also do not want them to be removed. I am sorry I wrote anything, just ignore it. I am sure in some time from now you will find enough sources for 1861 that will meet your needs. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You seemed to be an expert earlier when you quoted WP:RS AGE. Twice you claimed that there were loads of sources, but have failed to provide any of any sort (whether that be primary, secondary, reliable or not). This is not wikilawyering, it is asking for basic proof, per WP:V which is one of the most basic tenets of this site. Spike 'em (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am an expert on policies, not on sources themselves. :) FOr me a book is a book and this one seems to have good reviews. I do not know the bussiness structure of Nielsen UK publisher however. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

It seems pretty clear there are two different clubs being discussed here, the fact there's a new book out shouldn't change history. Clubs claim the history of defunct clubs all the time, see what Venados (link to AfD) did in Liga MX for instance, or San Jose Earthquakes - typically, but not always (such as potentially the Venados case), these warrant two separate articles, and I think that's clearly the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Diogo Jota

Persistent addition of unsourced/non-notable material by an IP, if anyone can lend a hand. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I've seen on YouTube, this appears to be an ePremierLeague invitational competition - not relating to real Premier League football and these are not honored unlike real Premier League titles. I would like to think this has stopped but someone could re-add that back in. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice: Disambiguating footballers from soccer players

Please participate in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#RfC: Does WP:ENGVAR suffice for disambiguating footballers from soccer players?, which asks whether "(footballer)" and "(soccer)" serve as adequate disambiguation when multiple players of the sport hail from countries which use a different variant of the name of the sport. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Football standings templates

I thought we got rid all of these standing templates a while ago and now the consensus is to have the standings right in the league season article (and transclude elsewhere if needed). Yet, there are a bunch of fresh ones created fairly recently: Category:2020 association football standings templates. --BlameRuiner (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There's still plenty of them remaining, though I'm assuming the new ones will be mostly just people copying the way it was done in the previous season if they weren't removed (certainly that way in Scotland, for example)

• Category:Scotland football standings templates
• Category:2018–19 association football standings in Scotland templates
• Category:2019–20 association football standings in Scotland templates
• Category:2020–21 association football standings in Scotland templates
• Category:Association football league templates

If anyone wants to help transclude and then delete the remaining templates, there's even more here in the subcategories: Category:Europe association football standings templates Boothy m (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In Belarus, the code was specifically taken out of season page and into a template after a few matchdays. All past seasons are already redone in the new way (without templates). --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand not needing these templates for smaller leagues/youth competitions, but I don't see why they should be disallowed altogether (especially for major competitions). This usage (transcluding code to many articles) is the purpose of the template mainspace, and helps reduce edit conflicts... S.A. Julio (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A prime reason is because template space is more prone to vandalism as it has far fewer watchers than article space. Perhaps the editors that created the templates were unaware of the recent trend to get rid of them. Number 57 11:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just started this discussion: link. Will follow up with other templates later when I have time. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Player Honours: Should supercups be included in a player's trophy count (e.g. Messi, 2005) if they weren't called up but are still credited with the title by the club?

Summary

Hello, fellow Wikipedian football enthusiasts. I hope you are all doing well and staying safe during these difficult and unprecedented times following the outbreak of Covid-19. I had a query over a recurring and important issue in Wikipedia footballer pages to which I and other users were hoping to find a solution; we have opened this discussion in the past, but although some of us voted, and I personally thought at the time that we had come to a consensus as it had been archived and a majority of users had voted in support of one argument, it in fact was never fully resolved, and a few users, including myself, are hoping that we can vote again and finally come to a consensus in order to avoid future arguments and inaccuracies on wikipedia football pages over similar matters. To summarise what I will discuss in the following paragraphs, for those of you who merely want to save time by skimming them or skipping over them to the final paragraph, the main issue is whether players should be credited with Supercup titles for which they were not called up, even if a reliable source credits them with this title (e.g. their club profile; I know that even reliable newspapers or commonly used sources such as Soccerway or Eurosport, although generally reliable, aren't always helpful when it comes to this, as there can be discrepancies or inaccuracies, and sometimes they can contradict one another). The main player who is the source of this debate is Lionel Messi, who is credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title on his wikipedia page, and in his official Barcelona profile, even though he was not called up for the competition, although this discussion can be applied to a larger issue which is often encountered by editors of footballers' pages on wikipedia.

Background

One of the problems is that in different countries there seem to be different regulations regarding which football players receive winners' medals in different competitions, and there doesn't seem to be much specific information on this, or a way to resolve this lack of facts on this matter. Obviously I know that in English football regulations are very strict on which players receive winners' medals for these titles, and they need to have been at least called up for the national, league, or Supercup final in order to receive a medal, or make at least five appearances in the league. Having said that, I'm not sure if the same rules apply for Spanish football, or any other country's football association, as I also know that in Italian football, things are slightly different, for example. Squad sizes have been limited to 25 players, and 30 medals are issued to a winning team for players and coaching staff – as shown here in an official source regarding regulations for the 2008 Supercoppa Italiana. I do think that when it comes domestic league and Cup titles – excluding England which has very strict regulations on this – that it is safe to say that a player can receive a winners' medal without appearing in the competition, as is shown by title assigning ceremonies (for example the ceremony for the 2017 Coppa Italia final, where Gianluigi Buffon is presented with a winners' medal without having appeared in the competition), but with Supercups, it's a rather different matter. I realise that one cannot confirm who exactly received a medal if they weren't called up for the match, but then again I found a picture of Simone Inzaghi with a 2009 Supercoppa Italiana medal round his neck even though he wasn't in the squad for the final (as can be seen in the picture in this article here from a reliable source like Sky Sport Italia, so situations like these can create problems, although I understand that using photographic evidence can count as original research). In this case, however, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, the main player that we are discussing is Lionel Messi, and whether or not he should be credited with the 2005 Spanish Supercup:

A while back, @PeeJay2K3: and @Aavelarx: had discussed with @Paulinho28: and me on Messi's talk page (archived discussions are shown here and here) that they felt the 2005 Supercopa de España should be removed from his list of honours (while we had disagreed at the time, although at the moment, I think that I am of the opinion that it should be removed), as he was not called up for either leg of the final (see here and here). However, [10]this official Barcelona source mentions that he and Andrés Iniesta are the players with the most honours at the club and lists them as both having won that title; his official club profile also lists this title under the honours section. PeeJay2K3 has argued that he wasn't part of the club's "A" squad at the time, as according to this page and this report (I had commented that while this is an interesting point, I'm not sure that these would be considered reliable sources on wikipedia), he wore the number 30 at the start of the season and was re-registered with the number 19 later on (in a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, Messi was wearing #30 – see here – and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, he was wearing #19 – see here); he also added that players in Spanish clubs' "A" squads had to wear numbers between 1 and 25 at the time, which indicates that Messi was not part of the "A" squad at the start of the season, and that it would therefore be unfeasible to consider the player to have won an honour if they weren't part of the club's "A" squad at the time.

However, although I thought that he made a valid point and that these arguments seemed reasonable and insightful, I didn't have any reliable sources which confirmed this. I tried looking for information on Spanish articles or official La Liga BBVA sources regarding squad numbers in Spanish football and their correlation with whether players were registered with the A or B team and found no such information (also, to make matters more confusing, Damià Abella was on the bench for the first leg of the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he had the number 32 at the time). I do know that the Messi wiki article cites a reliable source from a biography on the player by Balagué] and mentions that: "On 24 June 2005, his 18th birthday, Messi signed his first contract as a senior team player. It made him a Barcelona player until 2010, two years less than his previous contract, but his buyout clause increased to €150 million." This for me is proof that he was a first-team player at the time (especially as the Supercopa took place in August that year, and he made no appearances for the B team that season, while making 17 La Liga appearances and 25 in all competitions despite injury). I also remember that later in August, after the Supercopa, Fabio Capello wanted to sign him on loan after seeing his impressive performance when he started against Juventus in the Joan Gamper Trophy (which Hunter's book on Barcelona, which is cited in Messi's wiki article, also corroborates); moreoever, the Barca Wiki article for the 2005–06 season also lists Messi as being promoted to the first team.

Barcelona have credited him with that title on their official club profile for Messi on their official website, even though he wasn't called up for that match, but there doesn't seem to be a way to confirm that he received a medal, and PeeJay2K3 has rightly suggested that there might be a degree of bias, even though the club's profile of the player is generally reliable, and there doesn't seem to be a better source that contradicts this, even though some sources are contradictory. Moreover, @Anakimi: cited an interesting source from the LFP, the organizer of this cup, which seemed to recognise Messi to have won the title, which led me to believe that he should be credited with it at the time; however, his honours have since been deleted form his LFP profile, so this seems to clear that issue up. With all of this in mind, I wanted to see if we could actually arrive at a consensus over whether Messi should be credited with the 2005 Spanish Supercup or not, so that we can finally resolve this problem, and any future disputes over this, and so that we can use this as a guideline for whether other players should be credited with supercup titles in which they weren't at least called up. Should official club sources be taken into account? Or are sources such as Soccerway acceptable in the case that players did not appear in a particular competition or receive a call-up for a final? Or should they be removed altogether instead? I can see both sides of the argument, so I wanted input from more users.

I know that this is a lot of information and a lengthy discussion, but I hope that this post isn't too long or convoluted; please don't merely respond with "TLDR," as I've been trying to include as much information as possible and to relay events as accurately as possible, and have taken the time out to do this, so I'd appreciate some common courtesy as I also always try to be respectful on here. Please do feel free to ask for clarification if you have any questions, and to the users that I have tagged – @Quite A Character:, @Vaselineeeeeeee:, @Kante4:, @Koncorde:, @Spike 'em:, @Crowsus:, @Jts1882:, @Nintendonix:, @Govvy:, @Davefelmer:, @Mohammadyunusp:, @Mazewaxie:, @Danieletorino2:, @Sadsadas:, @The Almightey Drill:, @GiantSnowman: – please feel free to add any comments, information, or further clarification, so that hopefully we can vote on a mutual agreement, so that this issue can finally be resolved, regardless of our own personal preferences. Also, if we could please vote as soon as possible on whether Messi should be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España (Yes) or not (No), and avoid a situation like the last one, where we didn't actually come to any agreement, that would be great.

Thank you! Best regards to everyone, and please do keep well and stay safe, Messirulez (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Before answering below, I am copying my comments over from the Messi article talk page as points that I believe should be considered. /Start quote:

As there is an edit war going on here. A couple of points:

1. trophy counts based on club counts are in Shaky ground and we know it. But as the "lie" has now been so oft repeated as to be quoted by pretty much every reliable source as a fact, his absence in the two legs is moot. Per prior discussions - the reliable sources say he "won" it. There are no sources that exclude it that I can find.
2. as the Supercup is based on qualification from the prior season and Messi had appeared for the team and scored, he might / is likely considered by Barcelona to have contributed to their appearance in the Supercup, regardless of if he was in the game squad.
3. If Barcelona are the arbiters in this situation, then the answer is Messi won it. If the arbiter is the Spanish FA then someone would need to find their official records of who won it as part of the Barce team. I suspect it is the former.
4. I am not sure on registration laws, but at the time of the Supercup - Messi's appearances may have been restricted due to him not getting his Spanish nationality until the 26th of September. I am not sure if this functionally stopped his appearances entirely for the club, or if this was just an exclusion/ observance to avoid issues with too many foreigners. The sources provided are dead so unable to verify what the exact problem was and haven't had chance to find better ones.

In conclusion; the answer is to err on the side of reliable sources even if it doesn't appear right. The second answer is to try and get clarification from Spanish FA or Barce directly as to what the criteria for inclusion was / is. May even be worth sending an email to a Catalan journalist who may be able to assist / verify the status by checking their archives.

/End quote. Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll

• Yes – Lionel Messi should be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title. (Total: 2)
• No – Lionel Messi should not be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title. (Total: 8)

Yes

• Yes Paulinho28 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, if credited with the title by the club. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No

• No – I was initially inclined to keep it because of the LFP source (the organiser of the competition) that credited Messi with the 2005 Supercopa de España, but seeing as his honours are no longer included in his profile, and he was not called up for the match, I have changed my mind and believe that he should not be credited with the title. Messirulez (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No. He was not in the squad, simple as that. Kante4 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No. @Messirulez: Thank you for tagging me. I read it all you had to say. You make good points but I'm voting No because he was not called up in the squad, its very simple. A player cannot be considered a winner if he does not participate. Remember that incident when some strangers who dressed up as academy players got winners medals. I cannot remember the match but I know it happened in Italy. And for the player Damià Abella, he was in the bench for the first leg, so I think the Supercopa de Espana should be included in the honours section at his article.Sadsadas (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No. Unless any photos can be found of him with a medal. Crowsus (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - He wasn't involved in the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he wasn't even part of the Barcelona 'A' squad at the time (squad numbers 1-25 indicate the 'A' squad and he was #30 at the time, and the fact that he changed to #19 midway through the 2005/06 season is further evidence of his squad status changing). If it weren't for the fact that this is Lionel Messi, Barcelona wouldn't be claiming he won a trophy he had literally no involvement in, so if you include one member of the 'B' squad, where does it stop? Why aren't Barcelona claiming that the likes of Rodri, Ludovic Sylvestre and Ramón Masó, who had exactly the same squad status as Messi at the time of the 2005 Supercopa, also won that trophy? – PeeJay 20:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - the fact that reliable sources have taken Barcelona's statistics as true does not override the fact that he didn't play; also, there is no evidence of him receiving a medal, nor contemporary RS saying he was credited with it. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - just clubs either trying to treat all members of the given squad equally or trying to inflate honours. Not even on bench on either leg, no honour in my book. --Quite A Character (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - Thanks for tagging me and taking the time to write out the case as clearly and informatively as you did. I concur with Quite A Character (talk) just above me, it is nothing more than artificially attempting to boost someone's honours haul. If a player has not been selected for the matchday squad of a single super cup final or made at least one of the matchday squads in a two-legged super cup final, he does not get a medal. I do also agree with the point raised by Crowsus though, where an exception can be made if there is photographic or video evidence of a player officially recieving a medal (and not say, hanging around in the dressing room with a medal in his hand because that could easily be a result of a senior player letting him hold it or handing it to him as a symbolic gesture such as Nemanja Vidic handing Giuseppe Rossi his League Cup medal in 2006 which did not mean Rossi suddenly officially won the medal etc). Davefelmer (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Results and subsequent action

So, I'm assuming that seeing as the overwhelming majority of users who have taken part in this poll have voted against crediting Messi with the 2005 Spanish Super Cup title (with No beating out Yes by eight votes to two), that this discussion can now be considered closed, the issue resolved, and we can now proceed to removing said honour from his page? And I'm assuming that the same should be done for players who were not called up for domestic Supercup final matches UNLESS official sources or regulations state otherwise, or there is video or photographic evidence which confirms that they were still awarded a medal? Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Please stay safe and keep well! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it, but maybe we can get more votes. Kante4 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Kante4:; thanks for your response. Do you (or anyone else on here) by chance know what exactly is the protocol now? Is there anything that needs to be done officially to confirm the results of the vote and announce what exactly was the final decision, and how we should proceed in the future? I just want to avoid a situation like the last one, where a vote was taken (ironically at the time no-one voted against keeping the honour, so it's funny that practically the exact opposite happened now essentially) but then the discussion was closed before we were able to come to an official consensus. Thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Carlez Perez and Alex Collado

I apologize in advance that I will raise a sore topic again regarding the player’s awards, but is it worth attributing the victory in La Liga 2018/19 Carles Pérez and Álex Collado, because they played in the league after Barcelona won in La Liga, and in fact, they didn’t bring any benefits in the champion path. The official website of Barcelona gives them a victory David Cok 121 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, for me, they played a game during the season and won the honour. Before or after clinching, is no cut-off. Kante4 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What do the league rules/reliable sources say? GiantSnowman 14:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I was thinking about looking at the rules, but I couldn’t find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Cok 121 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is tricky because we would need to see the League regulations. In the Premier League, for example, you need a minimum of five appearance to collect a winnner's medal, and in the FA or EFL Cup you need to be part of the matchhday squad for the final. However, in Serie A, as long as you are a registered squad member, you receive a medal in the title ceremony, even without making an appearance in the league, and also in the Coppa Italia (the same with tournaments like the World Cup, or even the Champions League, as long as you are registered to the team). But I'm not sure about the rules regarding who is intitled to a winner's medal in La Liga or other European leagues to be honest. In this case, going purely by speculation and from assumptions by other users in other countries, I would be more inclined to think that the Premier League is the exception, and if the club credits them with a league medal, then maybe I would leave it listed on their page. After all, players who don't play – such as third goalkeepers – are sometimes brought into a team for their leadership in the dressing room, so they can still contribute to a team's victory even without playing). It's different with a one–off match like a Supercup, where if a player isn't called up, then I don't think they should be credited with it (unfortunately what makes things difficult is that the club profiles often credit players with supercups for which they were not called up as well, so there can be a degree of bias there as well, even though they are generally probably the most reliable source that we could use in this case), but if a player is part of the squad for an entire season, their team wins the league, and their club credits them with the title, then I think it should be included; moreover, if they have made an appearance, I think that presents an even stronger case for them being credited with the league title, even if it was after Barca had mathematically won the league. But the best thing would be to find an official source on rules and regulations. The individual LFP player profiles used to show titles, which in this case I think would help, as if they as the official organiser of the competition were to credit a player with a title, then I would think that it would be safe to assume that they did in fact win it; however, the individual LFP player profiles now no longer have player honours listed, so that isn't much help anymore. Best, Messirulez (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Premier League

Can you guys keep an eye (or 2 if possible) on the 2019–20 Premier League? The page's semi-protection just expired and within an hour of that happening an IP has already added unsourced content which has been reverted, and with all the speculation going on about how the season is going to end I suspect that we're going to see a rise in these kind of edits by IPs and some registered editors as well. cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Association football players by nationality

@Mattythewhite and I were discussing (at his talk page) about the criteria for inclusion in these categories (such as Category:Lebanese footballers). Matty argues that the country should be included if it's their country of birth, or if they represented the country internationally, while I feel that it's best to include any association football player who has that specific citizenship (regardless of where they were born or who they represented internationally). Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Matty - just sporting nationality/place of birth if that has conferred nationality on them. If for example a player has lived in a county for a number of years and acquired citizenship then we should not describe them as 'country they lived in footballer'. GiantSnowman 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What if the player was born as a dual citizen (A+B) in country A? I think nationality B should still be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Through parentage? No. A player born in England, raised in England, and who plays for England, but happens to have French parents, should not be a 'French footballer'. They are categorised sufficiently as Category:English people of French descent. GiantSnowman 18:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What if this player were to represent the France NT? Should he be part of both Category:English footballers and Category:French footballers? And what about a player who has dual-citizenship (A+B) and was born in country A, but grew up in country B? There are too many gray areas... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If he plays for that country, then yes, obviously include him in the category. That's an entirely different situation. GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Player positions categories

What are your thoughts on the following potential moves?

• Category:Association football central defenders to Category:Association football centre-backs
• Category:Association football fullbacks to Category:Association football full-backs
• Category:Association football wing halves to Category:Association football wing-halves

Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree! Messirulez (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. If this goes through you can go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

football-league.co.uk links

So I'm trying to improve the playoff final articles heading backward in time from 2019 and have been doing fine until 2012 Football League Championship play-off Final. I was trying to source the ref, his assistants and the fourth official, and drew a blank. Then I realised that literally hundreds of articles which are using "football-league.co.uk" as a source are now permanently dead or plain wrong. I imagine the rebranding to EFL.com put pay to the previous years of "football league" records. Can anyone help with this or am I just going to have to reduce material in these "earlier" finals to referee only (which is invariably in match reports)? Cheers in advance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Has the link changed completely or does it still have the same 'tail' (not a technical term!) - ie has it gone from football-league.co.uk/XXX/YYY/ZZZ to EFL.com.XXX/YYY/ZZZ? If so then we can replace the links, I did that a while back when the Danish FA changed their official website but retained the tail, simple find & replace. GiantSnowman 18:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find it: this for instance goes nowhere, isn't at archive.org and no, the tail method fails too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm out of ideas, sorry! GiantSnowman 18:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not convinced the Football League would keep that sort of thing indefinitely anyway, regardless of rebranding issues. That particular page is archived here, it verifies who was allocated to the various matches. Soccerway lists those who actually officiated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2. Two naïve questions for you: (1) is "archive.is" permitted on Wikipedia? and (2) is "soccerway" considered RS? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) it is these days; and (2) yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Best Wikipedia news all day. Thanks Struway2, I owe you a beer. Or three. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Just send me your bank details and I'll get some delivered. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

{{2020–21 Premier League table}}

Any particular reason why Arsenal, Everton, Manchester United and Chelsea are on this current revision of the table - they are not listed on this article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Why is there a league-specific template in the first place? Didn't we migrate to more generic tables? Only Liverpool and Man City have mathematically secured their participation in next year's league (which assumes everything's normal). SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't exist – presumably created by an editor not familiar with the change in how tables are done. I've hardcoded it to the 2020–21 Premier League article and called it from there on the other articles. Number 57 08:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the league table on both articles and informed user in question. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no explanation as to why the teams added by this user was given. The 2020–21 Premier League article shows three teams instead of seven on the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Women's football club, that is a section of a unisex football academy

A unisex football academy (Stars Association for Sports) has various women's football sections (youth and senior). Most notably, a team playing in the women's top tier of their country. The club's name is exactly the same as its academy's. What should the article be called? At the moment it's at Stars Association for Sports (women), but the academy itself doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If the Stars Association for Sports academy/organisation is non-notable, but the women's team is, then move the existing article to that location - no need for the 'women' disambiguator. GiantSnowman 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with GiantSnowman. Have a look for example at Canberra United FC - the page is mostly about the women's team because they are the notable squad which play professionally. --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yves Kibuey versus Mubama Kibwey

Hi folks. Any hobby detectives about? Here's an interesting case. Wikipedia assumes Yves Kibuey and Mubama Kibwey are the same person. But the article's a bit of a mess and sources seem to disagree somewhat.

• Worldfootball has both (Kibuey, Kibwey), the entries suggests they could refer to the same player. Both share the same birth date, place of birth, height and the first name "Yves" plus the Kibwey entry has a subset of the clubs listed for Kibuey.

• Footballdatabase.eu also has both: Kibuey, Kibwey. The Kibuey entry looks similar to WF's, Kibwey only played for one club here.

• NFT only has Kibwey. The entry lists the same clubs as the Kibuey entries of WF and FDB but notably disagrees about the first senior club listing Viry-Châtillon whereas the other two have Red Star. Meanwhile, this article from Le Parisien indicates a Kibuey played for Red Star. To top of it off our article lists three clubs he allegedly played for a as youth – one of them being Viry-Châtillon – all of which appear to be unsourced.

Some more sources:

• According to he SO Châtellerault website Yves Kibuey played at the club in the 1998–99 season, but not Kibwey.

• BBC match report mentions Mubama Kibwey playing for DR Congo.

• UEFA.com mentions Yves Kibuey playing for Leiria.

• La Dépêche says Kibuey played for AS Muret and in Portugal.

• This LinkedIn profile is about a former professional footballer called Yves Kibuey.

Help…? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you created (in your sandbox) two rival infoboxes based on your research/the sources so we can where the careers match/differ? GiantSnowman 10:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

2002-03 Iraqi League

Hi, in the past we had a discussion here about the 2002-03 Iraqi League season, about whether it was null/void or whether Al-Shorta was considered to have won, due to the majority of outlets today counting it as a title for the club and several notable primary sources at the time (AFC, BBC, CNN, ESPN among others) which noted that Al-Shorta had been declared winner.

The consensus we agreed upon was that we needed a quote from the Iraq FA about the season in order to verify either way. I have since found a quote from the Iraq FA regarding the season, from an article dated 14-10-2003 about Iraq FA Council's decision. Iraq FA Secretary, Jamal Burhanaddin: "[Al-Najaf] finished in second place on the league competition table in season 2002-2003 with 62 points behind Al-Shorta who won first place with 65 points". (Article link here but restricted to site members; screenshot here)

Now we can verify the Iraq FA decided that Al-Shorta won, rather than it being null/void, which is confirmation of what those notable sources had stated at the time. Seems this puzzle is finally solved! This affects the club and league's pages so wanted to keep the project in the loop on this, any comments welcome. Hashim-afc (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The importance scale

The importance scale for our project seems to be a bit... strange. For example, medium level is for "Teams with nationwide notability". This seems to put A.S. Roma and Safa SC at the same level (given that both are well recognized in their respective countries, Italy and Lebanon). But it's very obvious that Roma and Safa don't stand at the same level of importance football-wise. Same for "Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league" (again, mid-level). Does this mean that Houssein Rizk, who "participated at international level" for Lebanon, and Stefano Sturaro, who played for Juventus F.C., has won multiple titles, and has played in the UEFA Champions League, are at the same level?

I think we need to distinguish between country and country. Maybe have some sort of list for "top", "mid", and "bottom"-tier countries? I don't know, but the importance scale doesn't seem to be as rigid as it maybe should be. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about WP:BIAS here, being seen to favour countries in Europe etc. GiantSnowman 08:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Per GS. We also need to acknowledge that any international team is able to win any tournament. It might not be today. It might not have been at any time in the past. But it might in the future. Representing only the current dominance of particular clubs or nations is both a form of RECENTISM, and also a form of Not-NPOV. The sources themselves should stipulate the relative importance and significance of club, player and tournament. Wikipedia in contrast should be using generic neutral approaches to categorising teams.

From my perspective as a Wikipedia editor there is no difference in terms of importance to the project between any defunct club who appeared in early European football, and modern one season only flash in the pans, and Real Madrid.

Obviously as a football fan I know Real Madrid are more important and likely documented in every single action they have ever taken. But as an editor, I should be looking at those early clubs and recognising that they were likely important and we should be making more efforts to find supporting RS in order to ensure we are not merely just parroting modern journalistic / popular bias. Koncorde (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to go through this before, Importance for an article should have some guidance by how popular an article is, it's that more important to make sure that article is correct. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that we really only have three levels on the scale to sort hundreds of thousands of articles covering hundreds of years of football history. Of course it's going to seem a bit strange, considering that 359,000+ articles are being sorted into four levels...and the top two levels contain less than 1,000 articles!

I'll also repeat what GS and Koncorde said above, we need to watch the BIAS and RECENTISM. Article views / popularity are going to favor people and clubs from the internet era over those from before that era. For example, Enrique Ballestrero (who was the best goalkeeper at the inaugural World Cup) had just 530 page views in the past month; Nathan Trott, a 21-year-old who's on loan at AFC Wimbledon, had 1,230 views...but I think we could agree that Ballestrero is certainly more important to this project than Trott currently is. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at it as a complete outsider, compared to other projects, 44 is a very small number of "top", & 9xx a somewhat high number of "high". You could add all national teams & the main article for major international tournaments, plus leagues televised internationally say. But the question really is, what are these ratings used for? Ideally people should be trying to improve articles with high/top importance, but low quality ratings. Otherwise it hardly matters. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I don't think it's particularly important other than to indicate which articles are the most integral to a new reader's understanding of our topic and thus which ones we should pay the most attention to when it comes to fighting vandalism and improving these articles to the very top of the quality scale. I don't think any individual players or teams should be in the "Top" category, and the only competition I feel should be there is the FIFA World Cup; conversely, I think most players and clubs should be in the "Low" category, along with 99.9999% of all club season articles - only the most exceptional seasons (e.g. 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season) should be any higher, and even then I think it should be "Medium" at most. – PeeJay 20:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Second Peejay as echoing my arguments. The argument of a primacy of "popular" articles as being the most important to maintain accuracy isn't born out by the reality of what this project is about. Most season articles are, to some extent, crufty, filled with miscellaneous summary information and tables. Many popular players meanwhile are massively overly documented, with minutiae of individual games, and incidental events. They might be accurate, but they are not well written or considerately detailed from the perspective of a reader. It would be interesting to see how little is read of any of these given players page as I am going to guess it's the infobox, lede, and then statistics and honours. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on disambiguation

There is a RFC on disambiguating football/soccer players, please join in, the link is here. GiantSnowman 07:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dino Mennillo - appearances in Greece

Can someone with some knowledge of Greek football have a look at Draft:Dino Mennillo and confirm if he played in a WP:FPL? Hack (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything, and in any event appears to fail GNG. GiantSnowman 18:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that he played football in Greece (e.g., searching for μεννίλλο in Greek sources yields nothing related to football). Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone's favourite non-RS does suggest he made a single league appearance as a sub in Gamma Ethniki, which is listed as a FPL at that time. Can't find a RS to back this up, though. Gricehead (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Besoccer confirms that he played 62 minutes that match, before being subbed out. Not sure about how reliable this source is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If you click on the first match report on this webpage, dated 01.10.01 below the team photo, you get to an image of a newspaper match report which definitely includes him playing the first 62 minutes. They spell him μενίλο. There might well be more on that website, but you'd need someone who can read it, which lets me out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Struway2 - searching for μενίλο, I found that he made two 2001–02 Greek Cup appearances (see [11]). According to the newspaper article you cited, he played in one 2001–02 Beta Ethniki match as well. That said, I see no evidence that the GNG could be met here - the Beta Ethniki match report mentions him once, and the Cup matches summary just indicates he was in the starting eleven. So technically, he might meet the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL, but with no ability to satisfy the GNG, the presumption is invalid. Jogurney (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit of coverage of him in the Australian media. I'll have a bit of a closer look at some point. Hack (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Some free-use Bundesliga images

Hello, just found this guy on Flickr who has a few galleries from some Bundesliga clubs' training sessions uploaded under a free to use Creative Commons license. The most recent one with Dortmund has images for a few players which are currently lacking. I no longer have the patience to actually crop and upload them properly but I thought somebody here might. Gran² 09:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Leek Town reassessment

Hi I raised this question at WP:WPFA a couple of days ago and haven't got a response. I would like to hear others take on this as Leek Town F.C. has been a FA for quite a while however the article is seemingly GA class, or even B-class if I was being harsh, and I think it might need reassessment. Just to make it clear I have no connection with the club. Such as supporting rivals or having a personal problem with it. I am raising this point purely because I have seen other articles rated B-class and GA-class which are to be frank probably better or on level terms. Again I would like to hear others thoughts on the matter. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you, it's not a particularly great article. Standards were clearly lower in 2007! Jellyman (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who got it to FA status all those years ago, I am more than happy to work towards improving/fixing it as long as something more specific than "it needs improving" is set out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that WP:WPFA cannot remove the Featured status of an article. For that it would have to be taken to the Wikipedia-wide WP:FAR...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Championship winning manager templates

I've just noticed that @Lnhbm: has today created {{La Liga winning managers}}, {{Serie A winning managers}} and {{English Football First Tier League Championship winning managers}}, in the same style as {{Ligue 1 winning managers}} which was created back in 2017 by @InflatableSupertrooper:. Thoughts on these kinds of templates? I am leaning to 'not needed'... GiantSnowman 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw it today aswell and thought about bringing it up. I would agree that it is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They have just created {{Bundesliga winning managers}} as well... GiantSnowman 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have {{Premier League Golden Boot}} and {{England national football team managers}}. It doesn't seem too absurd to have league winning manager templates. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Those templates are completely different. GiantSnowman 20:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is: we have a template for winners of awards, we have a template for managers of specific teams, so why isn't a template for managers who have won a league appropriate? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They are totally different, like said above. Kante4 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Hamilton (footballer, born 1906)

This player seemingly played for Girvan Juniors, Hamilton Academical, Ayr Utd, Rochdale, Wrexham, Carlisle Utd and Chester between 1926 and 1940. Can anybody with a Joyce book/ENFA subscription please confirm his position, and whether he played in Scottish or English Football Legaues? GiantSnowman 09:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Joyce he played 77 times for Rochdale, 163 times for Wrexham and 23 for Carlisle, so over 250 EFL appearances in total -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

His playing position was full-back..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

via Litster: 1 appearance in the Scottish Cup for Ayr in 28-29 and 1 League app in 30-31 also for Ayr United. Ureinwohner (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - just wanted to check he wasn't a forward, to clash with James Hamilton (football forward). GiantSnowman 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have created a stub at Jimmy Hamilton (footballer, born 1906), it would be grand if @ChrisTheDude and Ureinwohner: could Kindly update the article using your respective books. GiantSnowman 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

1971–72 Football League First Division

I wanted to copy the first seven places on the table, but the coding of the table seems a bit bizarre to me. Is anyone about to make this more friendly? Govvy (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy the table and remove |team8 through |team20. In other words just have |team parameters for the positions you want. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I noticed you already found a solution by using |showteam=TOT. To get exactly what you asked for, use |lowest_pos=7 instead. --Sb008 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

lol ye, I only realised after I saw that solution off from another season page on my watchlist, cheers Jts and Sb008. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Martin Buglione DOB

The other day retired footballer Martin Buglione appeared on TV dating show First Dates Hotel and gave his age as 52. Our article on him says he was born in June 1968, which would only make him 51. Does anyone have a Hugman-equivalent book for Scottish League players, and if so what does that give as his DOB, please.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Litster post-war disc has 19 June 1968. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he was rounding up because his birthday is upcoming? GiantSnowman 18:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Cojocaru

A user created Vladimir Cojocaru, which is in a bad state at the moment. In particular, see my comment on the talk page (it appears part of the content is not factual). I don't write much about football, would someone here be so kind to take a look? Imo it seems like the article may have to be deleted (though it seemingly meets NFOOTY, which is why I marked it as "reviewed" for now). (please  mention me on reply) --MrClog (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not that bad - fairly standard state for footballer stubs. Needs improving but definitely meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have taken care of it, keeping only the sourced content. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ricardo Quaresma

Can a wikibrother get a hand, please?

While performing a minor cleanup in article (i.e. adding author(s) to sources when due), noticed URL to sources #62 and #63 is exactly (and wrongly) the same. Tried a Google search followed by one inside the BBC Sport website, with the full title "Cristiano Ronaldo selected in provisional Portugal squad", found nothing strangely...

Thank you very much for whatever assistance can be provided, keep up the great work y'all! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: I've removed the first source (formerly #62) and duplicated #63 in its place, as 63 also has the information 62 was supposed to source. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seals the deal :@Nehme1499:, many thanks for your assistance ;) --Quite A Character (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that BBC Sport changed the name of the article in the 8 days between the older and newer source being used. I've seen it a few times on BBC Sport articles, where they add new information to an old article, and change the title. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was correctly referenced. The content was changed after it was added to the article. The Internet Archive took a capture of the BBC article three days later, most likely as a result of the ref being added to the Wikipedia article. Hack (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lebanon national football team

Just wanted to let you know that the Featured Article candidature has been going on for over a month. @Kosack and @Nikkimaria have been kind enough to give their own comments, but it would be greatly appreciated if more users gave their input. Thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? The article is in a really good state, it would just be nice if a couple more people gave their opinions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a German speaking football fan

I have some German language coverage of a historic match and would like someone with good proficiency in German to help find the gems in it. Please drop me a line if you might be able to help. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: is the only native speaker I can think of off the top of my head (and apologies to anybody else I have missed...!) GiantSnowman 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I could help hopefully. ;) Kante4 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kante4: Ich entschuldige mich. GiantSnowman 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Alles gut, kein problem. Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. I've sent you an email. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to help. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Manager in Info box?

What rules are we doing here? I thought it was just to list teams managed, when a manager has been in charge of the first team. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct. GiantSnowman 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ASC St. Louis Stars

Dear football experts:

I came across this article about a football team. I am not familiar with leagues in this sport. Is this a notable team? If so, it needs some independent references for verification.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is notable. The club has won multiple domestic championship titles and has competed in the Caribbean Club Championship which is a recognised competition which provides qualification to the CONCACAF Champions League. Which in turn can lead to qualification to the FIFA Club World Cup. I have rated the article as a stub and added the required tag. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bohemia + Bohemia and Moravia national teams

Would it be worth creating articles for the Bohemia national football team (6 matches from 1906 to 1908; dewiki) and Bohemia and Moravia national football team (3 official and 3 unofficial matches in 1939; dewiki)? It doesn't really seem to fit in either the Czech Republic national football team or Czechoslovakia national football team articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm not sure. Interesting topic. What is the official start date for the Czechoslovakia team, if 1920 then a Bohemia article is needed IMO to cover the earlier matches. Since Bohemia played England, I looked up EnglandFootballOnline and it lists the result separately from Czechoslovakia - but then again it also separates that from Czech Republic, and has separate entries for West Germany and Pre+Post-Unification Germany when I think in FIFA's eyes they are a continuation. Similar questions on the legal status of 1939's entity. Crowsus (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Short answer - yes, let's have separate articles.

Long answer - we have separate articles on Germany/West Germany and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia national teams, because they represented separate countries/entities. We have an article on Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia so that football team probably merits its own article, but we do not have a separate article on Bohemia the country (just the modern day province of CR) as that was part of Austria-Hungary in 1908-1909 but it did appear to have a separate team (I suppose just how Puerto Rico does currently) GiantSnowman 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Idk if it's of any help, but the Lebanon national football team was formed in 1933 (and played an international match in 1940), 10 (3) years prior to the formation of Lebanon as a country. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-Fully professional leagues

I saw some club articles, where Non-Fully professional leagues and position are added, along with the professional leagues. Is this correct? ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain in more detail? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499, check East Bengal FC. is it correct to mention Calcutta Football League (not a fully professional league) in the article infobox? ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be very similar to Brazil's case, where clubs such as São Paulo FC have both the nation-wide Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, and the state championship (such as the Campeonato Paulista). I think that, in East Bengal FC's case, we should include both leagues in the infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: Yes, the article is about the club so it is appropriate to mention the current league in the infobox. Many clubs are important (considered notable) enough to have articles but currently play outside of WP:FPL. Eagleash (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that infobox - does the club's first team (not reserves) play in both leagues? If so then yes, both should be mentioned, irrespective of their status. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude yes 1st team plays in both leagues. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then both leagues should be listed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Play-off matches in infobox

How should promotion play-off/relegation play-out matches be considered in a player's infobox? Should they be included or not? And what about the club career table, where should those numbers go? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

End-of-season matches such as championship, continental or promotion/relegation playoffs are not counted in the infobox, and should be placed in the "other" column of the career statistics table. However, leagues that split into a championship/relegation group during the season are counted as normal in the infobox. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for you help. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Álex Fernández

I may have incurred in an error, so i come to the footy "commission" for enlightenment...

In this player's article, it is noted that he was chosen as MVP at the 2011 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. In the tournament's WP page, there is even a ref (now dead) reading "Álex Fernández, Golden player of the tournament" (URL here, maybe it can be revived https://www.uefa.com/under19/history/seasons/2011/goldenplayer/index?referrer=%2funder19%2fhistory%2fseason%3d2011%2fgoldenplayer%2findex); however, if you click in the technical report for said competition (please see here https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/TechnicalReport/competitions/Under19/01/80/32/47/1803247_DOWNLOAD.pdf), you will see he was not even chosen to the All-Star Team. How is that even logical (MVP, but not among best 23 players)?

If i incurred in an error removing accolade, please notify me so that i can revert myself. Attentively, thanks in advance for any input --Quite A Character (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: this website lists Fernández as the winner of the "Golden Player Award" at the 2011 UEFA Euro Under-19 Championship. Also, this other website has Fernández among two other Spanish players in the 2011 "Ideal U-19 European Team" issued by UEFA itself. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Many thanks for your hard work! I have retrieved the first example as source to article, even though i'm still a bit baffled by the logic (MVP, no All-Star Team; or maybe he did make said team and UEFA made an error, possible) :( --Quite A Character (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: There are archive copies of the original url from the 2011 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. You seem to have mis-copied it: it reads http://www.uefa.com/under19/history/season=2011/goldenplayer/index.html without the referrer stuff. An archivecopy, which you may prefer to use, can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20190816124028/https://www.uefa.com/under19/history/season=2011/goldenplayer/index.html . I've added that to the tournament page. For information, sportskeeda is a self-publishing site, and as such isn't a reliable source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source for Russian or Egyptian football stats

Hi, I was wondering if there were any WikiProject football recommended sources for Russian or Egyptian football stats. An IP has recently changed the goals scored stats for Marwan Mohsen, and while transfermarkt says he scored goals for both Petrojet and Al Ahly, I have previously been told it's not a reliable source, so I would like to check his goals scored somewhere reliable. Red Fiona (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FOOTY does not consider Transfermarkt a reliable source. Try https://soccerway.com, specifically Marwan Mohsen at Soccerway. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.national-football-teams.com is also another viable option, assuming the player has made at least one appearance for a national team (see Marwan Mohsen at National-Football-Teams.com). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox using data from both Soccerway and NFT.com. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm never sure what's reliable and not, so I prefer to ask :) Also, thanks for the edit. Red Fiona (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Way to go, Redfiona99. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding host city or stadium location on World Cup pages

This affects multiple pages, so I thought this would be the best place for a discussion.

We have always used a stadium's actual location instead of the official FIFA host city in the venue tables, for example, Pontiac, Michigan instead of Detroit for the Pontiac Silverdome. On 1994 FIFA World Cup, 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup, and 2026 FIFA World Cup, the tables have recently been edited to the names of the official FIFA host cities, so "Detroit" instead of "Pontiac" is displayed more prominently in the table. Both of these are factually true: Detroit was the host city, but games were played in Pontiac. Since this may impact other World Cup articles (for instance, the 2002 world cup shows Miyagi, but the FIFA web site shows Rifu).

Should the table of venues be changed to display the host city, where the host city differs from the stadium location? SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Original version (actual host location)

Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area) Stanford, California (San Francisco Bay area) Pontiac, Michigan (Detroit area) East Rutherford, New Jersey (New York/New Jersey) Rose Bowl Stanford Stadium Pontiac Silverdome Giants Stadium Capacity: 94,194 Capacity: 84,147 Capacity: 77,557 Capacity: 76,322 Dallas Pasadena Pontiac Stanford East Rutherford Orlando Chicago Dallas Foxborough Washington, D.C. WikiProject Football/Archive 131 (the United States) Cotton Bowl Capacity: 64,000 Chicago Orlando Foxborough, Massachusetts (Boston area) Washington, D.C. Soldier Field Citrus Bowl Foxboro Stadium Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Capacity: 63,160 Capacity: 62,387 Capacity: 54,456 Capacity: 53,121

Changed version (official FIFA host cities)

Los Angeles San Francisco Detroit New York City/New Jersey Rose Bowl (Pasadena, California) Stanford Stadium (Stanford, California) Pontiac Silverdome (Pontiac, Michigan) Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, New Jersey) Capacity: 94,194 Capacity: 84,147 Capacity: 77,557 Capacity: 76,322 Dallas Los Angeles Detroit San Francisco New York/ New Jersey Orlando Chicago Dallas Boston Washington, D.C. WikiProject Football/Archive 131 (the United States) Cotton Bowl Capacity: 64,000 Chicago Orlando Boston Washington, D.C. Soldier Field Citrus Bowl Foxboro Stadium (Foxborough, Massachusetts) Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Capacity: 63,160 Capacity: 62,387 Capacity: 54,456 Capacity: 53,121

• Oppose as RfC proposer. The venues table should be factual and use the name of the city the stadium is actually located in, consistent with my research into press reports of the time, i.e. that the 1994 World Cup final was played in Pasadena. Other languages use the same table format as the status quo. We can include the list of host cities in other places in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Because these tournaments take place in the United States, this works differently than any of the other tournaments. Both the host city and the actual town the stadium was/is located in have to be included. On FIFA's world TV feed for both the 1994 men's and 1999 women's World Cups, the host city for each stadium was displayed. But I can accept either one of those- as long as both the host city and the metro city (with the state next to it) are included. I don't care which one is in smaller text- as long as they are both there. That I will not concede on. --Hmdwgf (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Either is fine, just as long as both official host city and actual municipality are mentioned in the chart, not "elsewhere in the article". It's easy enough to include both, so no reason not to. As for which, I actually lean towards the latter version, as the parenthetical of the municipality looks cleaner to my eyes. And lets be honest, the suburban location of some of these NFL stadiums of far less interest to a worldwide audience. East Rutherford didn't host games because a small suburban town of fewer than 10,000 people is a world famous city. It did because back in the 1970s it had empty land for the New York Giants to build a stadium in a crowded metropolitan area. And while the town has been immortalized on hundreds of band tour souvenir shirts (between the old and new stadiums and the now-closed arena across the street), everything that has ever happened in the Meadowlands is because it's right near New York City. The suburban locations are parentheticals. And I say this as someone who actually knows the mayor of East Rutherford personally. oknazevad (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the original proposer of the change. I think it's important to separate the two concepts: the host city and the physical location, and when matches are discussed in official documents, marketing and on TV, the host city name is almost always used more prominently than the physical location. Here's what I cited in the article discussion, to support using the host city name, per WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME:

• Reporting in the run-up to the event:
  • https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1993-10-17-9310120719-story.html
  • https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1992-03-24-9201300198-story.html
• Reporting at the time
  • https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/05/30/star-in-stripes-tom-dooley-joined-the-us-team-to-pursue-his-dreams
• Retrospective reporting
  • https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014/05/29/usa-greatest-world-cup-moments-no-7-goal-detroit-eric-wynalda-proves-usmnt-belongs]
  • https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mick-mccarthy-factfile-1.445196
  • https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/26/golden-goal-ilie-dumitrescu-for-romania-v-argentina-1994
• Official documents and licensed products
  • Tickets ([12] and [13])
  • Official memorabilia
  • page 111 an officially licensed educational material (see page 111)

It might help to think about it in terms of how American sports games are reported and marketed. If the Seahawks are playing an away game against the 49ers, it would commonly be reported as Seattle at San Francisco, although the dateline on the article may say "Santa Clara, California", because "San Francisco" is the official city name of the 49ers. On schedules, marketing documents and on TV, the game is at San Francisco, though it may be specified in smaller print that it's actually in a city that's 50 miles from Downtown San Francisco. If you followed Women's World Cup last year, you probably saw that the final match was played in Lyon, even if it actually happened in a smaller town outside the city limits.

I think in a section that lists the cities/venues for the tournament, it makes sense to lead with the host cities, then specify below where the venues for those cities are located. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing to add @SportingFlyer:: I don't think there's a concern with the 2002 article, since FIFA uses "Miyagi" for the stadium in Rifu. 1986 FIFA World Cup#Venues is more likely to be affected because of the mismatch between the labels used in the article and the ones in technical reports. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think having formal host name and actual place where the games are played clearly stated is important. The proposed version makes that clearer (e.g. "San Francisco" for the host instead of "San Francisco Bay area"). —  Jts1882 | talk  16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To that point, I want to add that no matter which way we end up, the current version does need to be cleaned up because the "____ area" language that's used in the table right now was never used by the press, marketing or official documents. It was always host city in official documents and in reporting before/after matches, venue location in match reports. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Which isn't technically true: the World Cup Final, for instance, has always been reported to be in Pasadena: [14] [15] [16] etc - only FIFA uses "Los Angeles" as a by-line as far as I can tell. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As pointed out, the official documents and secondary sources are inconsistent about the use of the "host city" versus the actual jurisdiction where these stadiums are located. For several of these cases, such as the Rose Bowl, Foxboro, Pontiac Silverdome, and Giants Stadium, the mainstream American view is that the stadiums are not in the "primary city" but rather are commonly known to be in their respective suburbs. The original version was fine for this purpose, but the changes (often made without consensus and proper discussion) are disruptive and unnecessary. SounderBruce 05:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

FA Cup results copyrighted

Hi everyone, I was just looking at fchd.info for some old FA Cup results and I spotted that some qualifying results are redacted from the site on "copyright grounds". I was under the impression that results couldn't be copyrighted as they were essentially news - something that has happened in the public sphere is uncopyrightable - and people (Football DataCo) only tried to copyright fixtures on the basis that the production of the fixture lists was protected as intellectual property. Anyone got any ideas? – PeeJay 12:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right that you can't reproduce a fixture list without permission of the copyright holder(s). I think some papers can get away with it though if they're only reproducing the fixtures of one team and not the entire division (a bit like how a film or TV show is subject to copyright but an individual frame from said film or TV show isn't - the copyright only extends to the whole work and not every individual part of it). When it comes to results, I can't see that being the case. It will be the case that a publication containing the results will be subject to copyright but that would only extend as far as cut and pasting because it could reasonably be argued that you've collated the information from the same place they have. If you display the information in the standard wiki style (which I assume is different) and properly attribute it, you'd be fine. That should mean fchd.info should be able to publish it though so I don't know why they haven't/aren't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that football results were a matter of record and could not be copyrighted. However, there might be an issue copying a whole listing in a particular format. It's possible that fchd.info were threatened about infringing copyright and may have just removed it to avoid hassle. Can you give a link to an example? —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

FCHD guy Richard Rundle is very occasionally active on WP so may be able to answer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You can not copyright fact, a result is factual information. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All the results are also available at the FA website (use the dropdown menu under 'Past results'). Number 57 13:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In 2010 the UK ruled the lists were copyrightable but the ECJ functionally overruled them in 2012, couldn't quickly find anything on the aftermath. Not sure what happens now with Brexit. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• It was the forthcoming fixture lists that were claimed as copyright, not results (as you say, they're a matter of fact, so they can't be copyrighted). We have an article on the company that used to collect payment - Football DataCo. And yes, certain fanzines that printed them were taken to court. The whole fascinating story is here. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't explain why the FCHD redacted certain past results due to copyright issues. Mr Rundle must have had some sort of reason for doing that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Don't know, I admit - you'd have to ask them. Though, having said that, this is on the FA's website. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Would anybody be interested in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge to see 1000 football articles destubbed? Not a contest but it might be something which works to help improve existing content. If there is more than five people interested I'll create it.† Encyclopædius 11:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested if there are prizes ;) --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ SuperJew. Something like this? :) REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: something like this 😘 --SuperJew (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oooohh that's a much better one. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also be interested. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Count me in to this challenge. HawkAussie (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The winner would still get the trophy right? REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be game. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll create it then. We can start with 1000, once hit it can be moved to 5000 or something.† Encyclopædius 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge there you go! Sign up, I'll create an invitation so you can send it out to all project members!† Encyclopædius 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Can you send out the following invite to all project and taskforce members?

{{subst:WikiProject Football/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge Invite|~~~~}}† Encyclopædius 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Encyclopædius: Sure - I'll send it out tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Edu (footballer, born 1978)

Could someone revert the unsourced change to the date of birth at Edu (footballer, born 1978)? I'm on three reverts and can't find a source to support the unsourced date of birth. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Done. If they revert again, I'll block them. Number 57 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely WP:3RRNO applies here? GiantSnowman 15:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, just wanted to be on the safe side. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

FIFA list his birth date in squad lists as 16 May, e.g. Corinthians at the 2000 Club World Cup or Brazil at the 2005 Confed Cup. The Corinthians one is ref #4 in his article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Association football positions

Could folk (possibly admins as it's now at 3RR) keep an eye on Association football positions please, new editor is redefining the Centre Forward position with no source, has been asked to discuss on the talk page - which is being kind tbh, as its demonstrably wrong - but has failed to do so. Thanks Crowsus (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted and warned (I've also warned you - both of you are well beyond 3RR). If they revert I'll block them. GiantSnowman 16:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I'm not touching it again, was just hoping I could get a different outcome from them before having to go down this route. I did quote BRD process in earlier summaries. Crowsus (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It can be frustrating dealing with editors like that! GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

He returned to reinstate the same edit (reverted by @ChrisTheDude:) so I have blocked for 48 hours to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 18:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information added to the 2020–21 Premier League article

Two IP addresses have added teams onto the table without this being mathematically certain of staying for the upcoming season. This should be considered incorrect until definite news that they will be participating by mathematics or else. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And another group of edits. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sonny Pike

There are numerous conflicting/contradictory sources about Sonny Pike's career - it is not clear when he was signed with a club and when he was on trial etc. @Davidlofgren1996: has taken it upon himself to decide on this player's career, which isn't right - it needs wider input. Please can people join in the discussion at the article talk page? GiantSnowman 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but does this article even meet WP:NFOOTBALL requirements? REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, but it passes WP:GNG. There has been extensive media coverage down the years of both Pike's alleged bright future and of his ultimate fate....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see enough for GNG in my opinion. Notability asks for significant coverage and I don't see that. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It might not all currently be in the article but there seems to be plenty here. Pike is generally considered the archetype of the wonderkid who didn't go on to achieve what he could...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly encyclopaedic in my opinion! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Govvy please take it to AFD, I could do with a laugh today. GiantSnowman 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Just because I don't consider it's good enough for wikipedia would not be a general opinion. That sounds like an utterly pointless endeavour! Govvy (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing the color for a kit template

Hey, not sure how to do this but could anyone go into this "_hyderabadfc_away_2019_20" and change the brownish/yellow color to #f7e33f? If someone could explain how I can do that myself, that would be great as well. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: to change the colour of a kit pattern, you need to download the image from commons, and edit it through some program (such as Paint or Photoshop). Once edited, you can upload the image on top of the commons file. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Restore 2009 African U-17 Championship squads

Can an admin please restore the article 2009 African U-17 Championship squads? It was originally deleted because the list didn't have any notable players but a lot of the players that played in the tournament have now gone on to play professionally. I don't know what the logic was at the time as using that logic, it would apply to almost all youth tournaments and none of those pages are not deleted. If someone can please restore, I don't have access to do so. TonyStarks (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyStarks: You can request undeletion at WP:RFU. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just saw that someone submitted the request for me! TonyStarks (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

PFC Levski Sofia

Evening all, not sure what is going on the Levski article but there is something complex happening with the ownership. Unfortunately no idea about Bulgarian football, or relationship between chairman and the PM of the country. Do we have any Bulgarian editors onboard here, or anyone able to take a look at recent edits to the owner details and the sources. Thanks. Koncorde (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to the people who I have inevitably forgotten but Chris Calvin is the only one who I can think of off the top of my head. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. REDMAN 2019, thank you for mentioning me. I don't know how I could help, as the situation with the club is a bit of complex. In short. The owner of the club (a person who is speculated to be leader of several underground groups for drugs, illegal betting ect.) was also owner of a Bulgarian lottery called "National Lottery". It gained a great amount of popularity here in the recent years. The owner, Vasil Bozhkov, bought the team after being sponsor for some time. Last year the government started investigation for tax evasion of him. He was accused for owing to the government over 600 million leva (around 306 mil. euro). Also, a new law for lotteries was approved by the government, forbidding every lottery except National owned one called here "Toto". Bozhkov escaped in United Arab Emirates and he is currently there, while his company was bankrupted. Because of that, there is no money for the club. Recently, after a many asks from the club managers and fans, he promised to give the ownership of the team to someone else. Since he is in great dispute with the government and the PM of Bulgaria Boyko Borissov, Borissov know as a great fan of Bulgarian football and a fan of Levski, he send the documents of the ownership to him. He, as a PM of Bulgaria is not allowed to own the team, promised to help the team, but right now the team ownership is in dispute. Several Levski legends and companies announced they want to take the ownership, but right now it is not know who will take it, what is the legal action of this. In short, the club is a victim of the legal troubles of their owner, being used as a PR by him. The situation changes by minutes, so for me the best here is to keep the disputed mark on the ownership and wait for the situation to get a clear turn. I'll give a look on the article to keep it clear until the situation turn better, I was watching the pages for the other big Bulgarian team - PFC CSKA Sofia, having a similar situation with the ownership, recreating, merging and renaming several teams to get it restored, so I know how the fans of both like to use wikipedia for propaganda or for vandalizing the articles.Chris Calvin (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Premier League goalscorers

Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion as to the best layout of this list and I'd appreciate some users' input to get a feel for what the wider community thinks.

There are two proposed changes that I'd like to see.

A) Amend the layout of the table. I have provided three options below, feel free to critique and suggest alternatives. Related articles, for comparison, include: Premier League, Champions League, La Liga and Bundesliga.

1) The Current Table

Rank	Player	Premier League club(s)	National Team	Goals	Played	Ratio
1	Alan Shearer	Blackburn Rovers (112), Newcastle United (148)	England	260	441	0.59

2) Proposed revision

Rank	Player	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years Active	Club(s)
1	Alan Shearer	260	441	0.59	1992-2006	Blackburn Rovers (112), Newcastle United (148)

3) Revision - including Nationality

Rank	Player	Nationality	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years Active	Club(s)
1	Alan Shearer	England	260	441	0.59	1992-2006	Blackburn Rovers (112), Newcastle United (148)

B) The other change would be to align the page to the Champions League scorers page and rename the article List of Premier League top scorers therefore allowing the inclusion of the top scorers from each season and the top scorers by nationality etc. as additional tables to supply more information. I'd be delighted to hear your input. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding point A, revision 3 is definitely the best option of the three. Is solves the accessibility issue of having a flag without its country's name next to it, and has the clubs at the last column of the table, therefore emphasizing the actual important numbers (goals, apps, ratio). Just one small detail, the years active hyphen should be an en dash (–). As for point B, I'm indifferent. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The clubs played for are far more relevant to the table than the player's national team, which is given a false prominence by being next to the player's name. I find flags in the middle of the table hugely distracting. Spike 'em (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We could move the nationality column to the end, thus having clubs and nationality as the last columns, but with clubs taking the precedence over the NT. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea of having flags in that article. Govvy (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think having the nationality column where it is is fine. Having it in the middle, it sort of gets lost in amongst the other info, reducing its prominence. Of the three options, I'm in favour of number 3 the most. – PeeJay 11:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

To throw my two cents in, I would be in favour of Option 2 as it brings the article into conformity with the other comparative football record pages and I agree with Spike 'em that NT is not relevant to the the Premier League as a whole, only to the individual therefore, in my mind at least, they should share a column. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. As I've said on the article talk page, I think option 2 is the best arrangement. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 doesn't work per MOS:FLAG (Accompany flags with country names). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Incorrect, you don't need to apply a country name after a flag in a table. Tables have different rules when it comes to flag icons. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why are we using MOS:FLAG as a factor to be taken into account for the {{Fs player}} template redesign discussion? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, option three is rather poor, a flagicon can be placed before a name, it shouldn't be placed after a name in a separate cell. If a flagicon is placed before a players name, you don't need to supply the country name.
• Prose data, to numerical data in this tabular format. Option two and three are poorly crafted data rows. Option one has a clear precise construct and doesn't mess around. It's the safest bet to not violate the miss-use of flag-icons and MOS:ACCESS. The Premier-League scorers article list is fine the way it is, there isn't a problem with the article.
• I didn't see that redesign discussion, Seems to be some miss-information there, not to mention screen readers are not good at reading tabular information. It's best to keep flag-icons to a minimum. We are already heavily over-using them. The second proposed table of football players would not be nice to hear, it's a cleaner and clearer how we already have it. Govvy (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My main issue with Table One, apart from the lack of flagicons (which are used on all comparative tables as shown with the examples I initially listed) is that it does not give proper importance to the point of the article, the goals, which should be listed immediately after the player name, as they're the subject of the article. Then, using that flow, the table as shown in Option 2 makes the most sense. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. Option 1 (and current article) have the goals far too right for my taste. So option two or three seem fine. No flags (option 1) is also fine with colums reordered. -Koppapa (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree that player name and number of goals are the most significant pieces of information so should be emphasised. I still maintain that teams played for in PL are more significant to this list than national team and that using a plain flag by player name to represent this is not good. This is an opportunity to set a good standard through discussion rather than just follow what other articles do. Spike 'em (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that other articles have already set this standard and that this particular article is the one that doesn't conform. The Premier League page already has this table using Option 2's format. It's not even just football that uses this layout; Tennis, Rugby and Cricket also display nationality in this way. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG says: Consistency is not paramount. If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.. I've certainly edited the Test cricket list, that does need a link to national team, as they are international records set whilst playing for national teams. I would favour splitting out the flag into a separate column on those lists too. The PL goalscorer list is for domestic achievements where the PL teams are more important than the national team. Spike 'em (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the use of flags is in this case either unclear or ambiguous, especially if linked to the National Team rather than nation, though apparently it is controversial but the use of flags in comparative tables would suggest that it's not that controversial. As the flag only relates to the player I'd favour including it within the player name column rather than making it it's own sortable column but I'm happy to go with the consensus. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If the nationality/national team representation is important enough to include at all, then it needs its own column with name as well (or, ideally, instead of) flag. Cramming a bare flag in with the player name is neither logical nor compliant with the MoS. And other lists doing it wrong isn't a reason for changing one that's dong it right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:Flag does recognise that in sports statistics this is an acceptable use of an independent flag and states that it is based on the editor's preference and I am clearly displaying mine! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The section you link to allows for (1) using the country name at first mention and a bare flag thereafter; or (2) using the country name every time. The second paragraph recommends using it evey time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does state that however it does leave an exception for sports statistics, which this table is. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? perhaps you could point out exactly where. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I really think that MOS:FLAG text needs to be improved, but that's another issue. I also agree about that the list is domestic and that we should avoid applying nationality elements to the list. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Struway2, it says at the end of the first paragraph, and I quote, However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if {{flag}} is used throughout. . I am clearly one such editor! Felixsv7 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Think you've got yourself confused: {{flag}} is the one with the country name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about the wrong part of the MOS here:

I vaguely remember checking into this a while back, and the example table was edited after it was included in the MOS. The whole thing could do with an overhaul and possibly some RfCs to come up with an up to date consensus of how to treat things like this. Spike 'em (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, the article appears to be confused as well as the example listed demonstrates the opposite Felixsv7 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

National tournament squad navboxes for football variants

So from past discussions here and TFDs, there is a consensus to only have tournament squad navigational boxes for the World/Confederations Cup and main continental competitions (men and women). However, what about football variants? There are many of these templates for futsal competitions, for example Category:2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship squad templates. And two Paralympic templates exist, {{Spain men's national 5-a-side football team}} and {{2016 Paralympics United States men's national 7-a-side football team}}, are these necessary? Squad lists already exist at articles such as 2012 FIFA Futsal World Cup squads and Football 7-a-side at the 2016 Summer Paralympics – Team squads. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say futsal and Paralympic squad templates are non-notable. GiantSnowman 09:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hugman's Footballers

website has been down for days. Anyone know anything? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No server return, timeout, don't see a service there and the domain name is registered till 28 June this year doesn't appear it's been renewed yet. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, not worked for me either, but I thought it was at my end... GiantSnowman 11:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like OVH who host Hugmans have some routing issue. Requests are timing out because traffic is being looped internally within the OVH network. Quick look at twitter suggests Hugmans is not the only customer affected. Gricehead (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Still an issue by the looks of it? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Full fixtures list in a league season

I don't really want to start an edit war, but please confirm my understanding that we shouldn't have full fixtures list like this in a domestic league season article? This is pure case of WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the fixture list is copyrighted? GiantSnowman 09:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The UK case you may be familiar with was UK law which was as far as I can tell overturned by the European court system back in 2012, and I can't quickly find anywhere which points you to how you can license the fixtures. We use complete season fixture lists on AFL season articles, so it's not a WP:NOTSTATS issue in my mind. Whether it's good form is a separate question. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We had prior discussions to that and agreed (if i recall it correctly) to NOT have those fixtures on a season article. Kante4 (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's stat overkill however may I point out that the Premiership Rugby season articles all have such tables. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The list cannot be copyrighted after it has happened - once it is results. Some leagues copyright it before matches take place (such as the Premier League). As far as I recall, the consensus reached was to allow the fixture lists on the league article, unless the league has club season pages which would have the fixtures on them (so as not to duplicate info) - I'm not sure how good that is as that actually duplicates info too. I would suggest the best way is to have the fixtures on the league season, and then on club season pages have it as an anchor/copy part (however we do it for the ladders lately). --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, fixtures have not been copyrighted since that European court ruling in 2012. More information here. Prior to that date it was only English football fixtures that were copyrighted, it had no relevance to Myanmar footballing fixtures anyway. As for is it stats overkill? Well the standard for domestic league season articles is to just have brief summary tables like this rather than detailed fixtures/results that one would find on a club season article.--EchetusXe 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Eniola Aluko

Would someone mind taking a look at the recent edits at Eniola Aluko, I'm on three reverts. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a couple of weeks. Number 57 23:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We're also in a similar situation on Odion Ighalo where league apps / goals scored in the infobox has been altered to include cup competitions. I am on two reverts at present but that is obeying the text at the bottom of the infobox. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, protection to both articles solves the disputes. Thanks HJ Mitchell. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging two separate U.S. Open Cup Champions into one entity

I believe there is a issue in regards to the 1932 U.S. Open Cup Champions, the New Bedford Whalers. After some research, I believe that this team's accomplishment should be combined with the Fall River Marksmen's four prior national championships, creating an "Fall River Marksmen/New Bedford Whalers" entry that has 5 Cup wins.

I will try my best to explain the situation (this is long but try to follow):

Between 1922 and 1930, the Fall River Marksmen completed within the American Soccer League (1921–1933) and won the U.S. Open Cup (then known as the National Challenge Cup) 3 times during that span (1924, 1927, 1930). However, by 1931 the effects of the Great Depression forced the team to move to New York City and merge with a team named New York Soccer Club, thus creating a team called the New York Yankees. However, since Fall River had already entered the 1931 National Challenge Cup they could not change their name - meaning the Yankees played in the 1931 American Soccer League while the Marksmen competed in (and won) the Challenge Cup.

While the Marksmen's move to NYC was going on, the team's owner Sam Mark made their former home ground, Mark's Stadium, available to anybody willing to place a team there. A group of businessmen bought a team called the Providence Gold Bugs and moved into the stadium for the 1931 American Soccer League season under the name Fall River F.C.. They were mediocre, and at the end of the Spring season the team also absorbed by the New Bedford Whalers (who never finished the Spring season).

At this point we have two entities: The Marksmen/NY Soccer Club (playing under both the names NY Yankees & Fall River Marksmen) and the Fall River F.C./Whalers (playing under the Fall River F.C. name).

Heading into the 1931 Fall ASL season, the Fall River FC/New Bedford combination folded. Sam Mark, the now Yankees owner, realized the move to NYC wasn't working so he decided to move the team back to Massachusetts. He then bought Fall River F.C. name & players, moved the team to New Bedford, and brought back the Whalers name in time for the Fall season. With players from all four teams, New Bedford won the league in both Fall 1931 & Spring 1932. More importantly, the team also won the 1932 National Challenge Cup.

To quote an article on this issue from TheCup.us:

"Of the 12 players who made Open Cup appearances for the New Bedford Whalers in 1932, eight of them had appeared for the Marksmen in their 1931 title run. Only four players that made Open Cup appearances for the Whalers in 1932 were holdovers from the old Whalers club that played in the 1931 Spring season: Tommy Florie, James Montgomerie, Tommy McMillan and William Watson. The 1932 Whalers were essentially the same team as the Marksmen in 1931, they had just moved twice in less than a year."

"Six players appeared in all three cup-winning runs from 1930-32: Johnny Reder, Bill McPherson, Alex McNab, Billy Gonsalves, Werner Nilsen and James “Tec” White formed the core of the team during this time, making 133 total Cup appearances and scoring 41 goals."

Here's some additional roster information from the 3 Challenge Cup winning teams (1930-32).

The Whalers folded following the 1932 season.

U.S. Soccer has mentioned the potential issue themselves in a 2020 article in the "TWO (MAYBE THREE) WITH FIVE" section. However they claim it was just a simple "name change" when in actuality it goes a little beyond that (as I've explained).

If you're still reading, this is what the situation appears to be. I think it warrants a discussion on the topic. I stand that a "Fall River Marksmen/New Bedford Whalers" combination should be marked on the U.S. Open Cup#Champions section. Additionally, a small note should be included in the section briefly explaining the situation. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thecup.us is a blog. The cup's official website says "there's a debate to be had." Since there's some doubt as to whether it's four or five, I would keep it at four and add a hat note next to Fall River instead of merging them, which I think accurately reflects the reality of the situation. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can you talk more about what doubts there might be? I feel like 1932 New Bedford having the same owner (Sam Mark) & players as the Marksmen would make this the same team? Plus, when Fall River moved to New York City and changed its name, there was no issue keeping that title marked to the Marksmen name. What's to stop that with this move & name change from doing the same thing? Also why does the validity of TheCup.us matter when 6 of the 8 sources I listed aren't blogs and also tell the story (albeit through the frames of each season)? Additionally, the website has been mentioned in official U.S. Open Cup media, including a mention & endorsement during the 2019 U.S. Open Cup Final broadcast. Shouldn't it be considered a bit more than just a "blog" and not outright discarded? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Potential Page name change: Should "Auro" be renamed "Auro Jr."

I hope this is the right place for this question. I've never posted a general question for the community on Wiki

Page in question: Auro

I originally posted this on the Talk page for the article, but I figure it will not be looked at much. Auro Jr. is a player for Toronto FC in Major League Soccer

Toronto FC lists his name as "Auro Jr." rather than simply "Auro". Even his jersey lists him as "Auro Jr". Should we do a page move from Auro -> Auro Jr. ? Examples of Use:

• | Auro Player Profile on Toronto FC website
• Example of Name on Jersey
• Another Example of Jersey
• |Player's Personal Twitter
• |Player's Official Facebook Page

The league still lists him as just Auro

• | MLS Player Profile

RedPatchBoys (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoys: if you believe the article should be at Auro Jr. then please use WP:RM to nominate the page for a move. GiantSnowman 16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the proper link. RedPatchBoys (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

List of association football stadiums by capacity

Is there any way we could automatize the table ordering? Every time a stadium is added/removed, we would have to manually shift all the numbers up/down one by one, which takes ages. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not get rid of the rank column. And if spots around 300 are anywhere close really is questionable anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the 250+ unsourced/unreliably sourced entries would help, as well... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, never knew North Korea had such a big stadium. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Honours

Being a runner up is not a honour Jamal78612 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some runner up teams receive medals after competitions end. e.g. Tottenham's players had medals at the end of the last full Champions League competition as noticed in this image. Harry Kane has this honour on the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Announcing that being a runner up is not an honour doesn't make it a fact. Some would agree with your personal opinion on the subject, others would not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And runner up honours are not included in every case. The competition I said is one of the major and most-viewed competitions and they have enough medals to make to continue in the next seasons. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if it's the same guy with a load of Jamal786 accounts. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Same guy as who? That Jamal786 account only edited on the Wafa Sultan article talk page in April 2006.--EchetusXe 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember there being a dozen different Jamal786 names. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They may or may not be different people - I have not been observing the Jamal accounts as much as others have. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just an irregular visitor to the project yet a prestigious contributor to football articles (c'est moi), I wonder if there's been previous consensus on what constitutes an "honour"? Receiving a runner-up medal in a play-off final is hardly an "honour" yet being a losing finalist in the World Cup may constitute such. I believe it may be useful for the project to determine what is and what is not an honour. Unless that's already been done and I missed the boat. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Really, this again? Feels like we've been through this conversation so many times. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We have, because there is never any agreement on the matter. Some editors think only winning a competition is an honour, some think that being a runner-up or play-off winner is. I would put myself in the first category (although I would say winning silver or bronze in Olympics or continental athletics tournaments also counts). Number 57 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed not to remove runners-up honours from the honours section but maybe I imagined it. If honours are referenced they should be pretty safe anyway.--EchetusXe 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would put myself in the same boat as EchetusXe here, it has been a tentative topic, but we kinda had an agreement before to keep runner up for cups. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I read it in an article in WINNER.BG

To any page watchers watching User talk:Iggy the Swan:- I have no idea what someone is talking about on the bottom section of my talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd guess it is a response to this edit. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It should also be helpful if the person who posted that message to me to provide the link from WINNER.BG instead of leaving just the text and that person did not put a signature either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 in English football

Please can someone confirm that the current tables are correct or not, I am seeing the tables are being partly done. e.g. in the League Two table, there are 16 teams in there but who says they are definitely confirmed? Skyblueshaun says so without saying so in League 2, IP addresses in the other two again without a reliable source. And the source provided in each of the tables shows the current season's Championship table. I'm not certain if that should be included at this time or not. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think it's best to not include any tables until all the teams are confirmed. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't base the current league tables based on "gut instinct" and incorrect sourcing by the EFL website, we must let any official news to appear first and then deal with the addition of teams later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These kinds of articles are probably better off deleted as we stand. It's all speculation for English football, last season is still "active" and how the hell next season goes, remains to be seen. These "future" articles are a waste of energy. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2020-21 EFL League One and Two also contains unsourced material which reflects how the tables were generated by the IP address I have talked about on User talk:Mattythewhite. The mentioned season Championship article has migrated to draftspace with the same non factual and uncertain combination of teams lurking there as well. No-one knows when the season will begin and there is no confirmation of anyone securing a divisional place except for the top three clubs in the Premier League when the matches were last played. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete the lot of them until we have an idea as to what might happen. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's currently no suggestion at the moment that the 2020-21 season won't go ahead as planned with the Premier League and EFL as per normal, just without crowds at first and a later start date in September. EchetusXe 00:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

{{Infobox sport overview}}

Thoughts of the current subdivision of "National", "Club", and "International" competitions? I don't understand the difference between the first two, and is the third for competitions such as the Champions League, or for national team competitions? Maybe instead of the current labels, we should have "Domestic leagues", "Domestic cups", "Club international competitions" "National team competitions". Also, as @Jellyman stated in 2018 (template talk page), the use of the three labels in inconsistent from article to article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

1964 British football match-fixing scandal - should it be English football?

Prompted by a discussion at Template talk:Match fixing in association football as to whether that template should say the scandal was in Britain or England, I want to raise the issue as to whether the article 1964 British football match-fixing scandal should be renamed 1964 English football match-fixing scandal. While a couple of Scots were involved, notably Jimmy Gauld, my reading of the article as it stands is that the scandal only related to matches in the English leagues and did not involve matches in Scotland. The slight point of ambiguity is that one of those convicted was Dick Beattie who played for the Scottish club St Mirren F.C. at the time as the article indicates. However he had played for English clubs earlier in the 1960s, though the article is not clear as to whether his conviction related to offences in Scotland or his time in England. A bit of online research would seem to suggest that the specific charges related to his time in the English leagues, but if anyone could clarify this, it would be helpful. If it is the case no Scottish matches were involved (or any Welsh either) then a rename might be appropriate. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Crystal Palace

Could someone have a look at Crystal Palace F.C. as per previous discussion as I'm at 3 reverts. Spike 'em (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted, but given that the club's utterly preposterous claim to have been formed in 1861 seems to have generated quite a bit of debate, I would suggest that it should be mentioned in the article more prominently than just in a footnote...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll add a mention of the claim in the lead and history section. Spike 'em (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, we've been over this before, the way I see it now, Stephen70 seems to be cruising towards being banned! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I started that discussion but still people have not taken note of it. I can see from Stephen70's contributions that there had been more than 500 edits which I see that it resulted in an admin protection. We don't want that to continue into June otherwise things could be more serious. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would add a mention, but the page is admin protected, so it will have to wait a few days. Spike 'em (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Did nobody think to post on the editor's talk page rather than just reverting? GiantSnowman 08:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked him to discuss both in edit summaries and on the article talk page (and have had a message from him on my own tp). The admin block seems excessive to me. Spike 'em (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to unprotect it if you're happy Stephen70 is not going to continue. Number 57 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Single-source stubs-Wrong title

I moved Michalis Bousis to Michalakis Bousis and Giannis Oikonomidis to Ioannis Oikonomidis, because those are the names given by the only source used in the article. The creator objects to the move saying that the sources have got the name wrong and presents me other sources not used in the article (see User_talk:Usedtobecool#Michalakis_Bousis). I understand there are plenty of single-source stubs in this WikiProject. How is it usually resolved? To me, it is unthinkable to have an article titled one, and sourced about another entirely missing sources clarifying the connection between two names.

I will notify WikiProject Greece of this discussion. Pinging GRanemos1. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please use WP:RM rather than engaging in potentially contentious page moves. GiantSnowman 12:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, how is it a contentious page move when that's the only possible title given by the source? I was patrolling new pages, and page title is one of the considerations of that process. Per the source provided, Michalakis Boukis is notable under NFOOTY, Michalis Bousis is not. Of course, it's contentious now, but how was I to know? Or, are you saying that I should undo my move and propose a move as soon as someone objects for whatever reason? Thanks for responding! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot blame OP for just being bold though. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how the page move is contentious given it is to the name used in the only inline reference and in the external link. However, the text of the article and infobox should also be changed to match the page title. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't rely on the single source on the article; do your own search. GiantSnowman 13:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(from WT Greece) I guess Greek is not the only language from which names can be transcribed in several equally valid ways. In this case, Michalakis is a diminutive (like Jim for James), and one that would be a bit strange to use as a first name. Similarly, Giannis (pronounced Yannis) is a diminutive of Ioannis, but one that is universally used in place of the older spelling of the name. Looking out by last name only, I found that the player's own club uses Michalis Boussis (note the double -ss-), this site uses Michalis Bousis, UEFA uses Michailakis Bousis (an even more unexpected translation). All I can tell you from that... is that his grandfather is probably still alive. In similar cases of transcription problems for little-known players, databases will often not give much clue other than several transcription can be used. I would trust the original editor of the page and refrain from renaming an article without a RM, except if you have very clear information that one transcription is in standard us, such as an interview or an elaborated article in an established newspaper, not just a database entry. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Women's football about Arsenal's players

In late May, I have been watching some articles about Arsenal players where a hatful of edits have been removing or reinstating lesbian status, as well as Lucy Bronze and possibly more. The dispute is mostly with the club's players with Jordan Nobbs and Leah Williamson getting the most editing yesterday.

The user who was responsible for restoring is AmSam13 where the edit before that was others removing the information claiming this should not be in there. I am failing to find overall consensus with the dispute of yesterday's edits and the one made on Beth Mead today before a talk page edit was performed before 2:00 (BST).

I have posted on ANI yesterday about a film article with similar editing about the plot, so if I see this continuing, ANI may well be edited by me again so they can be aware of it. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that those players are indeed lesbian, I don't see why the information shouldn't be included in the "Personal life" section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

from the LGBT guidelines: A living person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) only if they themselves publicly identify as such Spike 'em (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok I was unaware of this, guess I was wrong. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup

Should the edit comment summary be striked out? [17] Govvy (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also just noticed seems to be a lot of vandalism going on, on that article. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have warned the IP in question. If it continues then report him/her to the admins. If it starts happening from multiple IP addresses then it's simplest to request page protection in my humble opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

odd, I thought one of the admins here might of stripped the swearword from the edit summary field. Govvy (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Annoyingly I'm not an admin. Thought hopefully some random kind respectable admin might remove it thought (hint hint to any admins out there). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the page has twice before been semi-protected. If the vandalism continues it might be an idea to ask for permanent protection. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary now hidden -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, was watching the Space X launch, but that got cancelled, Govvy (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

At least the ISS is always viewable.

Footballwise, I've seen the recent edit made by the IP address, I can see they were fixing the problem but what was wrong with the edit summary. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It had some foul and abusive language in it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary hiding ChrisTheDude. It seems I wasn't the only one disappointed after last nights Space X cancelling. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: commented 10:00 AM 28 May 2020

Ah thanks. Wikipedia should have admin privileges to edit the edit summary to partly remove what the users/IP addresses say. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Same name but different transliteration

Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1989) and Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1991) both share the same Arabic name (Arabic: حسن شعيتو). The player born in 1989 is most commonly transliterated as "Chaito", while the one born in 1991 as "Chaitou". However, both forms can be used for both people. Would it be best to move the guy born in 1991 to Hassan Chaitou (footballer, born 1991), keeping the disambiguator "(footballer, born 1991)"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's basically a choice between two main elements of the naming policy – consistency and common name. As much as it massively grates with my OCD-esque desire for consistency, unfortunately I think the commonname element probably takes priority in cases like this (the respective spellings of Chaim Weizmann and Ezer Weizman still cause me angst, and that's before we get into the whole Chaim/Haim issue...). Number 57 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if they have different spellings, you no longer need the (footballer, born 19XX) disambiguation and can do it with a hatnote. Number 57 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people though would search for "Hassan Chaito", expecting the guy born in 1991, or "Hassan Chaitou", expecting the one born in 1989. For example, if the one born in 1991 were to score a goal, and someone on wiki were to link him as Hassan Chaito, it would be an incorrect link. Anyway (probably due to Wikipedia itself), the player born in 1991's common name is "Chaito" now, so there isn't an issue with those two players specifically anymore. But still, it's best to have this cleared up in case it were to come up with other people. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Are we still avoiding logos on kits

Rossbatchelor (talk · contribs) has been adding new kits for the Canadian Soccer League with a small logo on the right shoulder that appears to be from the kit-maker. Are we still trying to avoid logos like this? There are other clubs that these edits are being applied to as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

At least it's not as bad as the logos on 2020 Kedah FA season. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's a copyright issue and also potentially accessibility? GiantSnowman 07:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been uploading kits made by JonasBR, and I was not aware this being an issue. Apologies if it is. Rossbatchelor (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought kit manufacturer logos weren't a problem, and that only kit sponsors and the team logo should be removed, or am I mistaken? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've heard size arguments: small does not apply. I've also heard that only if the logo itself is copyrighted, regardless of size, is it an issue. So the Nike "swoosh" cannot be copyrighted and so it can be included but the Adidas symbol is copyrighted and so cannot be used. Not sure about Umbro or other kit manufacturer logos. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but to be fair 4 pixels that invoke the "idea" of a logo isn't really a logo in and of itself. See the rendition of Lebanon's kit (Commons), compared to the actual kit. Are those 9 pixels really "copyrightable"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not the nine pixels that are copyrighted, it's the original logo, and given that the nine pixels are a recognisable representation of that logo, they are a violation of copyright. And my point would be, even if not all logos are copyrightable, if we can't use some of them, we shouldn't use any of them. – PeeJay 11:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Honours and achievements", or simply "Honours"?

Following up on this discussion, what should the section be called? "Honours and achievements", or just "Honours"? I argue that it should be the former, given that we also include things such as "National team all-time goalscorer" and "Premier League top assist provider". @Mattythewhite and GiantSnowman believe it should be simply "honours". Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Honours should usually suffice, but those who have outstanding achievements such as a league all-time goalscorer can have 'honours and achievements'. My opinion.--EchetusXe 13:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:2020–21 in English men's football

I've started a discussion on the amount of clubs currently visible on the template. Although the Championship intends to resume the season, the same cannot be said for leagues one or two with the 50/50 chance to curtail them. The Guardian says it is still unclear at this stage. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick question about first sentences

I have seen *Marky MacLarky is a former Russian football player* in player articles. Surely this should be *is a Russian former football player* as he is still Russian just a former player. Am I understanding this right? TIA Arnkellow (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arnkellow: Yes, *nationality former player* is a much better wording; it's quite a common anomaly (or was). Hopefully the majority of articles have been corrected. Eagleash (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually it would be 'is a Russian former footballer'. GiantSnowman 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. Arnkellow (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman footballer instead of football player? Linked in any way? Arnkellow (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Standard wording, including links and formatting, would be "John Smith (born 1 June 1990) is an English former footballer who...". GiantSnowman 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Arnkellow (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't professional before footballer also standard use (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Only for players who are professional... GiantSnowman 21:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability check

I couldn't see these two passing GNG, but I previously prod'ded them as I thought they failed NFooty also, so maybe someone else can double check for me.

• Lucas de Oliveira Cunha
• Abduvohid Nematov

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The current club they play for is not exactly notable world-wide unlike some of the top teams in Ukraine. The information given at present does not address much text and three sources were given in total. The clubs they played for are not in the most popular divisions for all apart from the host countries where they are set.

I think these articles won't pass GNG either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Only one of these players plays in Ukraine, and he has apparently made no appearances. The other one plays in Uzbekistan (as did the other previously) and that is not a fully pro league according to WP:FPL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Lucas de Oliveira Cunha would strictly speaking pass NFooty for his 2017 appearances for Mogi Mirim in Brasileiro Série C. Gricehead (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Lucas Cunha also played in the Campeonato Carioca, which is apparently a fully-professional league. Hack (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, okay, I've just sent Abduvohid Nematov to AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Notices bulletin

I was wondering if it would help to have some kind of notice bulletin once a week posted here. Telling people of new events in the project, what pages new pages have been added to the AfD list, merge, rename discussions. Some other stuff! etc. Govvy (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New GAN, FAC and FLC nominations could also be included, as well as reminders for nominations that are falling down the list and are in need of reviewers. Kosack (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, is it possible to fix up a script that can post these things? Govvy (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AfD lists, merge and rename discussions are already on the project page at WP:FOOTYDEL, and FAC, GAN and PR (although not FL by the looks of it) are on the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Articles currently under a review. Do we need another page for this, or do we just need more people to know where the information already is? My view is the latter. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph, I get the impression not everyone reads through the project page and comes straight here, just thought it might be helpful to have like a footy WP:signpost, Govvy (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure a weekly list would work well for AfDs, RMs, prods given their timeframe. Also, the Football article alerts list is huge, so it would be a rather large bulletin if it was added (and look how large it was back in December when there were 883(!) articles listed in the prod section). Perhaps we could just have regular reminders for people to watch the article alerts page? Number 57 09:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dam, that's a lot! But posting only whats new for the week? hmm, it was a thought, but you maybe right that it could be a waste of time. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time each day trying to ensure that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves is as up-to-date as possible - that's the best place to check for relevant discussions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland national team

There is an editor calling himself HateBigotry who is persistently editing the article on the Northern Ireland national football team to remove the distinction between it and the Ireland national football team (1882–1950). It's an important distinction, hence Wikipedia has separate articles. Can someone else please help me defend the article? --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Both @Nicknack009: and @HateBigotry: are in violation of WP:EDITWAR/WP:3RR and possibly also WP:TROUBLES. Both stop editing the article now and take it to the talk page or you will be blocked. In the meantime I have reverted the article back to the version it was before your nonsense. GiantSnowman 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: A position was agreed many years ago for this article on its talk page by a group of editors, so i did not see this as being an edit war, merely myself reverting vandalism from what was an agreed position among many editors. Your revert has changed the article to a version that was dismissed years ago by many editors as not being accurate.HateBigotry (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The stable version was actually the version HateBigotry was reverting back to. This batch of edits by an IP in mid-May seems to have been the starting point of this conflict. Number 57 21:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth reminding - 3RR applies regardless if it's the person being BOLD, or the one reverting to a "stable" version. Both are in the wrong. I haven't got the time right now to look into the particular issue, but this should be following WP:BRD and being considered on the talk page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - I have no view on what is right or not, I simply reverted to the version prior to the edit war. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Scotland 2nd level question

A quick question: is the Scottish Championship (since 2013) considered the only 2nd-level WP:FPL league in Scotland? And the First Division pre-2013 is not a FPL league? --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Neil Doncaster (Chief Exec of the Scottish Professional Football League) said on the Price of Football podcast recently that there are only 14 fully professional clubs in Scotland. I'm re-listening to the episode now, to get the exact quote. Not sure how that means the Championship can be a FPL. Gricehead (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Having listened, he says "roughly 18 to 20 fully professional clubs. The rest are part-time." here, from about 26:00 Gricehead (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of WP:FPL/WP:NFOOTBALL, the top 2 Scottish divisions are considered fully-pro. GiantSnowman 12:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that, but why? Strikes me as a bit of bias to count Scottish Championship as fully professional, when there are part-time clubs involved, but conversations here have excluded (for example) some Brazilian leagues because teams are allowed to name non-professional players on the team sheets, despite the club being registered with the professional association? Gricehead (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see this, but before 2013 there simply wasn't a Championship. As far as I know, it was a bit more complicated than simply renaming Fisrt Division, it was a new establishment while FD got bumped down a level. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Transfermarkt websites

Should all the transfermarkt websites be added to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? Govvy (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It can be reliable sometimes. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

0,o Are you sure??? Govvy (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's not spam. The blacklist is only for the most egregious violations of policy. And while something that is "reliable sometimes" as REDMAN 2019 said should generally not be used as a citation, I wouldn't consider it spam either. Not every user-generated source should be blacklisted. Transfermarkt, like Wikipedia, is accurate the vast majority of the time. I don't see a need to blacklist here. Smartyllama (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I always thought transfermarkt is user generated as Mattythewhite states in the edit summaries when reverting IP's for not providing reliable sources. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is user-generated. Even when it's correct, there's usually a better correct source e.g. Soccerway. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It might be possible to get a warning message introduced that comes up when editors try and add it. If you try to add a blogspot link to an article and hit save, it doesn't save it, but comes up with a message warning you not to use it unless you are sure it is appropriate (and then you can save). Number 57 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea Number 57. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Could it be added to the list mentioned in WP:DEPS.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The easiest thing to do is to add it to XLinkBot's two lists. This will revert any change from IPs / users < 7 days trying to insert it. Just to be clear, are we talking about any URL with "transfermarkt" in it? Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to deprecate the website as source, since it's only that stats database that's user-edited. The articles on the website are fine, in my opinion. Many of them are from third party news agencies that are reliable sources in their own right. That being said, the stats database does account for the vast majority of transfermarkt references added to the 'pedia, so some automation to address this would be helpful. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think some automation would help a lot, on occasions I've come across articles littered with transfermk links. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Status of league

Hi, please advise whether Elite League (India) is a fully pro league, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

By definition, youth leagues are not fully-pro. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A youth league by its very nature cannot be fully professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And surely all the seasons for it since it became an under-18 tournament aren't notable, per WP:NSEASONS? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Barry Hugman's website

Is now located at this. I have updated {{Hugman}}. GiantSnowman 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have an AWB script from when the DBU did something similar (changed their domain name but left the rest of the URL unchanged) so will go through and fix what I can. GiantSnowman 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there like tons of links/cites to hugmans?? Govvy (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

About 800 url links to the website (I've already fixed the template so that is now working again), I managed about 150 last night and will try and do a similar amount tonight if I have time. GiantSnowman 15:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo file problem

Recently, @BalkanianActuality: uploaded a pic, this one. Soon after, the uploader faced some problems, as seen at his talk-page, section Image without license, however, regardless of that, the picture has further problems which should be adressed properly.

First of all, the title. The picture shows a team gathered around late 1970s formed by amateur players. Back then, specially in socialist societies, it was usual to organise besides professional competitions, also amateur activities. Sports was to be available to the people and for the people, unlike capitalism, where sports focused much more on professionalism with amateurism having no space in the headlines. In this spiryth, in Yugoslavia, besides the official professional competitions, there was also plenty of amateur activity organised specially on republics and provinces level. Full-professionalism was introduced in the Yugoslav First League in the 1960s, so, without knowing exactly the inclusion criterium for an official amateur team, one can only guess it was formed by the best players playing in the lower-leagues comming from Kosovo. This would mean that besides excluding the best Kosovar plyers playing abroad or in the best Yugoslav clubs outside Kosovo, it also excludes the players of the Kosovar clubs competing in the professional league. Basically, excludes all of the best Kosovar players at time, making it by no means even remotelly similar to some Kosovar national team and how would it look from that time.

With Kosovo having been accepted only recently by FIFA and UEFA as equal member along others, it lacks history, and there are atempts to create them history by exagerating and missleading certain events. This case certainly seems one of them; portraying an amateur Kosovo team from 1970s as a national team is wrong. The file should be properly renamed and its use should be adequate, with special atention not to present it as something that it isn´t. I pinged the uploader of the file, and I would certainly welcome any help from any of you fellows, thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that you have commented under the Facebook post BalkanianActuality took the image from. Is it possible to contact the Facebook uploader (Istorija ex yu fudbala)? They seem to be active, and have both a website and an email. If they could clear this situation up it would be ideal. The image lacks a licence for free use though, so that should be taken care of. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. The Facebook account is taken care by an author of several books about Yugoslav football, I know him and his credibility is high, but even so, the problem is also the missuse of a picture of a Kosovo amateur team as Kosovo national football team, two very distinct teams. The facebook account clearly says its just an amateur team, and now we have users wanting to make it a national team image. FkpCascais (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer and reason about my action

Hello @FkpCascais:, the reason I couldn't react to this is because I've been busy with some personal work, thank you for correcting the content of the photo from "Kosovo national team at 1970s" to "Kosovo representative team at 1970s, composed by the best players from Kosovo", because at the time of uploading I did not know what to call the photo, I do not intend to distort the history because I know how it all this story was and the reason I added this photo is because the modern Kosovo national team is a descendant of Kosovo representative team (Kosovo amateur team), I say descendant because after the separation of the Football Federation of Kosovo from that of Yugoslavia after a long break the activity has returned the team under the name Kosovo representative team and played unofficial friendly matches with football teams and national teams such as Albania, Northern Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, etc. But the events converted the team from a representative team in a national team and became a member of UEFA and FIFA. You can freely remove the photo I have no problem, the reason I added the photo is that I saw a lot of photos on Wikipedia that were added in such a way as the photo that I added and through the photo I wanted to tell an unknown story which in this case has been the dusty and unknown history of Kosovo national team. If you have information about the matches that Kosovo played before the 1990s, such as the case of the match against Yugoslavia and the matches as part of 1975 Brotherhood and Unity Tournament. I ask you to add because where action would reveal a great discovery of the football history of the former Yugoslavia, in addition to these matches I have information about a match between the Vojvodina representative team and the Slovenia representative team. It is time for racism and hatred to disappear, as this action that we are expected to take would tell the true story of Yugoslav football that has been more qualitative and much more disciplined as modern Balkanian football. With respect, BalkanianActuality (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

End of season squad changes

Now that the Scottish/English seasons are coming to an end, a polite reminder that:

1) In England players remain contracted until 30 June 2020, unless a source explicitly says they have left early; and 2) In Scotland, players (including loan players) remain contracted until "the end of May" per BBC, again unless a source explicitly says they have left early.

I have noted a number of editors removing players early. It is a well-established convention when a club announces their release/retained list, we leave them in the squad listing (and squad template) but place an * or similar next to their name to indicate they will leave on 30 June. GiantSnowman 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is rife on French club articles at the moment, judging by my watchlist. I just don't have the energy to fight that particular battle currently. Gricehead (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto for Indian club and player articles. God help me if some twitter page says something. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In previous years we have posted here for any articles particularly affected so others could help revert/warn/block... GiantSnowman 17:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

True, I should take advantage of that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Placeholder to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this edit should stand, i.e. the editor has not removed the released players, just kept them there with a star or "until 30 June 2020" in Jefferson Montero's case on Birmingham City F.C.. Seems like people are still not understanding the way that they are removing players at the wrong time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that is usually how I mark them when Bradford City announce the released list. GiantSnowman 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Voila. GiantSnowman 16:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been having a disagreement with an IP editor about this issue on the article of FC Den Bosch (edit history). The article which I linked to admittedly did say 'Contracts do not end on June 30, but after last game' (in dutch) in the title but this was referring to a FIFA decision regarding the current season, and the body says 'Player contracts usually expire on June 30 and start on July 1' (though I do speak little dutch so I may be mistaken). I've already reverted multiple times but the editor is insistent he is right and I'm tempted just to leave it as it is. Any ideas? SFletcher06 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting information - can you find other sources about it? GiantSnowman 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Are these sufficient: [18], [19], [20] SFletcher06 (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled seasons

When seasons have been cancelled due to the pandemic, they usually order the tables as PPG. But at {{2019–20 FA WSL table}}, it has been changed to win percentage but that's not how the BBC source has ordered the table. They ordered it based on PPG so I am questioning if that should be reverted back or not. And those numbers in the PCT column I have no idea on how they are used. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the objection to using the PPG is that it doesn't also give the raw number of points scored. There's a thread Module talk:Sports table proposing that that it should include both, but that will require a change to the module code for the template (so, we need get the attention of a template editor). Kahastok talk 10:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should just use a wikitable instead of a template? – PeeJay 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Template:2019–20 FA WSL table/sandbox what is wanted? —  Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. -Koppapa (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the {{2019–20 FA WSL table}} template to use the new option |ranking_style=ppgpts. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what we probably needed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:FC Den Bosch

Hi all. I've started a discussion on this talk page following a dispute with an IP editor who was removing a section about racism at the club. I feel that it would be useful to have some input from some more senior Wikipedians. SFletcher06 (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Palace page

I have a feeling there maybe some socking going on per [21] :/ Govvy (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I see there is still a lot of guff being added to the intro about the claim to be founded in 1861, almost always by new accounts. I wonder whether we should semi-protect the article for a few months until this goes away. Number 57 21:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Might help, still, there is some oddity going on there for sure. Govvy (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 6 months. GiantSnowman 10:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Player stats in a cancelled season

What should we do for players who have played in a cancelled (null and void) season? By cancelled, I mean that no winner has been declared, there is no top scorer, no promotions or relegation. In my opinion, even if a player has played in, say, 10 league games, those shouldn't be counted as the season itself has been voided. Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's standard practice when a season has been cancelled, such as with the 1939–40 Football League season. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. All caps/goals should be counted. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "disagree"? Of course, it varies from league to league, but typically in a cancelled season, the matches are treated as though they were never actually played and annulled from the record. That's what happened with the Football League in 1939-40, as Mattythewhite pointed out. – PeeJay 10:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that was 80 years ago. Guess most associations, stats sites keep the goals and caps nowadays. -Koppapa (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what happens. It's not exactly the same situation, but when teams have been dissolved during a season recently, their results up to that point were completely scrubbed from the record; for example, when Chester City F.C. was wound up during the 2009–10 season, they were recorded as having played zero games and every other team ended up with 44 games played that season. It's also important to make the distinction between a season being cancelled and being voided. Goal.com did a pretty good article about that (here). So let's please be careful to check what language is used by each league when they do their cancellations/voidings. – PeeJay 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, clubs are being promoted and relegated based partly on their performance in this season and the position they were in when it was frozen, and even those involved in replays obtained their place in them through league positions earned in this way. So if we void all the results there will be no record of how they came to be there. Britmax (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In that scenario, the season clearly hasn't been voided. We are only discussing here (to the best of my knowledge) seasons which have been deemed completely null and void, not simply concluded early -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Flags in match articles

Just noticed User:Mattythewhite has been removing the flags from the early European Cup final articles. Not sure this was discussed beforehand, but he has a point that they're not necessarily compatible with MOS:FLAG. Nevertheless, I don't think Matty should continue with this without consensus to support it. – PeeJay 18:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. He shouldn't be removing them but I seem to recall is that consensus here at FOOTY was that the flags should remain. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would I need to seek consensus when WP:MOSFLAG states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality"? That criteria has not been met in the instances where I've removed flags. Just because they've been there a long time doesn't mean they *should* be. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CCC comes into it. Plus actually is useful to know which country a club or player represents. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPORTFLAG allows the use to show the international team they players represented. The problem is that the flag icon was linking to the country itself, but that can easily be resolved rather than removing it altogether: replace {{flagicon|ITA}} with {{fbicon|ITA}} etc. This is also true of the teams, both in those involved in the final and those they met in the earlier rounds, they were representatives of a league in a certain country so that flag is permissible in the article. Or is your intention to remove every flag from every article on every UEFA competition? Because that will be necessary for consistency. It will take a long time for negligible positive effect and noticeable negative effect (albeit fairly aesthetic). Crowsus (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Crowsus pretty much sums it up. SPORTFLAG allows for it. The real issue here is the page was using flagicon instead of fbicon and that is the fix that should be made. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So we're working on the assumption that *every* player in *any* given line-up has represented a national team? I see your WP:SPORTFLAG and raise you WP:FLAGCRUFT (Do not emphasize nationality without good reason): why is national team representation *relevant* in the context of a club competition? And then there's the issue that we're including the flags without country names, which WP:ICON#Accompany flags with country names states is "an accessibility issue, since the images rendered can be difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size". Mattythewhite (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

People are obsessed with flag-icons, but it does provide it's uses. I really think what Matty is doing is pointless, we have a consistency across most flag icons, no need to destroy that. And Matt, maybe you need a holiday from wikipedia! Govvy (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In European club tournaments clubs do represent their country. The country coefficient decides how many clubs of each country are allowed to play in each of the European tournaments. -- Sb008 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

But for clubs we'd need to do it in a way that satisfies the accessibility considerations laid out at WP:ICON#Accompany flags with country names. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clubs are representatives of their national associations in European competitions, therefore the use of flags for clubs follows MOS:FLAG and should not be removed. The template {{fbaicon}} can be used instead of {{flagicon}} to link to the relevant association. If there is an accessibility issue, it would be better to discuss before removing the information entirely. Regarding the players in the match lineups, the formatting is similar to squads lists on club articles which use {{Football squad player}}: the payer, number, nationality and position are listed. Some changes will be made to the aforementioned template following an RfC, possibly a similar solution could be used for club lineups (the sandbox version could also provide a solution to the accessibility issue). Or {{flagathlete}} with the FIFA country code could be used. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The initial question was whether to use flags for clubs in European tournaments or not. The answer is yes, since those clubs do represent their country. Which flag template to use is another question. -- Sb008 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility aside, I would question whether a player's nationality is relevant in the context of a specific match at club level. There's also sourcing to consider. This is often overlooked when it comes to nationality listings, which is curious given how heavily disputed nationality can be. However, I'd be happy to implement an accessible way of incorporating flags for clubs, although I don't think using just {{fbaicon}} would be sufficient, as we still wouldn't be accompanying flags with country names. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do find the player nationality relevant and useful information, as is done in club and season articles. Here is an example of another method of displaying the nationality using the 2006 final. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's just so ugly to me. I totally understand the accessibility issue, but in my opinion, we're being too accommodating to accessibility needs. Obviously I can never have the lived experience of someone with a visual impairment, but flags are supposed to be an at-a-glance way of identifying a country, so adding a tricode to an already cluttered visual landscape seems like overkill. There has to be a better way. – PeeJay 06:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Matter of taste I guess. I personally find it very helpful and it does brighten up pages too. Indeed it can also be useful to distinguish between clubs and players too such as for Hibernian and Hibernians. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying I like the flags, I just don't like the addition of the three-letter codes in S.A. Julio's example. – PeeJay 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what we're asking of or solving here, but personally I've looked to see what was removed. I find the removal of the flags difficult for quickly determining which club represents each country, since I'm used to the country's flag being associated with each club, and a blessing for the player table, which is a dog's breakfast for my colourblind eyeballs, and a player doesn't even necessarily represent their country anyways. Is there any way we could split the difference and return the flags to the infoboxes and road to the final tables and remove the flags for the lineups? I think that would be the consistent solution with MOS:FLAG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 06:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly be a decent compromise, and I think restoring flags to the clubs would be the bare minimum. I might even suggest the infobox could accommodate the name of the country each club comes from. But I have to disagree about players not representing their countries - although they're not competing on their country's behalf, you often hear about Player X being the first representative of Country Y in the UCL final or whatever. The make-up of a squad by nationality is fairly useful information. – PeeJay 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Any read of a Croatian newspaper will keep you up to date on all of the Croatian footballers around Europe, so I certainly understand this - however, I don't think the information is so important that it needs to be represented in the lineup of the squad at the expense of not being able to read the squad's lineup legibly and easily, which is an issue for me. Graphics bugs for lineups typically do not include nationality, and when they do, they typically have it in the form of (CRO), (GER), (AUS), et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, maybe we need to tweak the design of the tables currently being used to display team line-ups. At the moment, parentheses following the players' names is reserved for indicating who the captain is, which I think should be preserved; however, I have noticed that there is no cushion between the yellow card and substitution info and the names of the players, which is especially apparent if the player with the longest name gets booked or subbed. Allowing a little more white space in that table (and increasing the font size to 100% instead of the usual 90% currently used) would definitely help with legibility if we need to rearrange some of the info. – PeeJay 07:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I find the player flags no different than what is used at Atlético Madrid#Current squad or 2019–20 Leicester City F.C. season#Appearances. It is not essential information, but provides further details and context to readers, and any accessibility issues can be solved. If deemed inappropriate for match articles, flags for player nationality should not be used at all on the club level (in templates such as {{Football squad player}} or {{Extended football squad player}}). S.A. Julio (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's really no reason to remove the nationality everywhere, just in match articles. Places of birth or countries of origin are common in squad lists, but much less common in lists of players appearing in the starting lineup. The flags are also much further apart in the squad templates, which is really the biggest issue I have with the lineups. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If the table formatting is an issue, changes can be made where necessary. Not sure what you mean by much less common in lists of players appearing in the starting lineup, these tables are merely squad lists for a specific match. Soccerway, a very commonly cited source, uses the same formatting for matches. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking from my experience with cue sports, where this was brought up a while ago, there are a few things at play.

1. flags should rarely be in infoboxes. Outside of places that say "this is the flag of the country", it's not suitable. Having the country name in brackets for international events does seem suitable.
2. MOS:ACCESS and MOS:FLAG are a bit picky, but we don't have to discuss them to make changes. They do have superiority over local consensus. Currently in cue sports, we use {{flagathlete}} on the first instance of a flag, and then {{flagicon}} on successive usage... But for consistency, this usually means for certain rounds.
3. We should only really be flagging for things where a nationality is relevant. So, in snooker, the players in the competition might well be relevant, but information about the century breaks that they made during the event aren't relevant to what country they are representing. For this end, I suggest that teams representing a national team - such as at the Champions League, should have flags of the nation. However, something like statistics for players in Serie A shouldn't have flags next to their names. Does it matter if the top scorer is Brazilian in a domestic league?
4. I am all for if somehow flagicon was to meet ACCESS/ICON needs, but it currently does not. I do think that would be the most suitable way to solve this issue across all sports. However, we should still label out where and when flags are important. The biggest thing here is that it doesn't matter if you don't like the looks of how meeting the MOS males the article, we either follow it, or get a consensus to change the MOS site-wide. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have come across a couple of examples where flagicons have been used in international matches and I have removed them as it is unnecessary as all players play for the same country and therefore come from that country. However nowadays some clubs have more players from overseas then they have one which are native to the same country (take S.S.C. Napoli for example) and flagicons help show that. Currently I see no problem with them and removing them would just be removing a bunch of perfectly good information. I would agree with the suggestion that they are removed from lineups and definitely restore them to the club and season articles. Also some people have been saying that they need removing from lists which I don't think nessercery at all as, like the season and club articles it helps clarify where the players come from. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)