Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 134

Archive 130

←

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

→

Archive 140

Wartime guest years

Is there any precedent stating that an English footballer's guest years during either World War should not be included in the infobox? Lettler^hello 22:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they should, usually displayed as → CLUB (war guest) underneath the club he was usually contracted to. GiantSnowman 10:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Where's the consensus on that? When I've looked in the archives, when the matter is brought up every few years there's been some people in the Yes group and some in the No group, with some changing their minds over time. I am in the Nos, as these weren't domestic league appearances with the normal leagues suspended (other than Scottish Division One during WWI), they were all unofficial appearances in unofficial competitions which are never included equally with regular seasons in a a serious statistical sense, partly due the records not being recorded in a consistent fashion across the clubs and leagues, so there is little point listing them in the box with no appearances - look at the Scottish and English clubs' Seasons list articles and they mostly have a blank section in the relevant years even though we know numerous cups and leagues were competed for, and that's just for the club's fixtures which are a lot easier to confirm than the player appearances. Yes, the wartime clubs were part of the players' footballing lives and should be mentioned in the prose, in some detail if sourced because there's some very interesting stories out there, and there's also the wartime guest cat to help denote the time they spent in this capacity, but if we compare this issue to the current discussion over youth seasons and a possibility of just removing that aspect altogether, I would question the aesthetic or practical need to include in the infobox the many occasions when serving players turned out for the closest club to their HQ on a casual basis during the war. I would also point out that previous discussions on here have made reference to "the inconsistency at Stan Mortensen and Stanley Matthews", obviously being two stars of the WWII era who were sought after as guest players and consequently had complicated busy wartime CVs, which at various points were displayed in the infobox in contrasting styles. At present, both of those articles do not display any wartime club career at all, and look much better for it IMO. So it's simply not as simple as saying "they should" when obviously this is not the preference of all editors and certainly not applied to all relevant articles consistently, and i haven't found any guideline confirming it to be the instruction site-wide. I am happy to do an RfC on this because obviously it affects a lot of player articles if they are being researched and displayed properly, but perhaps comments on this would be sufficient to form consensus, and if not I'll wait til the youth saga is finished with before starting another one. PS this is a bit YLDR, apologies for that. Crowsus (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in lists of players of a football club

Can you please advise on this matter? --Tanonero (msg) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Jonteemil file delete nominations in the footy project

I am concerned by the mass deletion of football images by Jonteemi. He is not informing the article talk pages where the images are being deleted. I am not sure if the original image uploaders are being informed or not. I feel this is being disruptive to article integrity and false nominations are happening, I think this needs looking into. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#File deletions by Jonteemil. GiantSnowman 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

List of association football players by nickname

Thoughts on this list? Is it notable enough to be kept? And if so, should it be reformatted (maybe into tables, or something different)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Highly trivial if you ask me, WP:OR ? I don't think it's wiki-worthy. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed. GiantSnowman 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams

(copied from the talk page)

Maybe the title should be changed to "List of association footballers who have been capped for multiple senior national teams", as some players have represented three NTs. Or, we should change it to a more concise "List of association football dual internationalists" (or "List of dual internationalists in association football", in line with Category:Dual internationalists (football)). Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. There are only two who represented three nations: Alfredo Di Stéfano (technically all his appearances for Colombia were unofficial and are not recognized by FIFA) and László Kubala who is the only player to officially play for three nations. Given the current rules only allow for two nations maximum via the one-time switch rule, I think it is okay to leave the title as is with the word "two" with Kubala being a special exception all the way back in the 1940s/50s. I prefer the current title over the "dual internationalists" as I feel the current title is more obvious to the article's intent. The reason we deleted the original article and started over was because editors did not follow the instructions at the top of the page and it became an unfixable mess. Changing the title to 'dual internationalists' I feel would cause editors to start adding players who played for one nation in youth and then a different nation in senior, which is specifically not what the article page is about (since this is what occurred the first time around - editors ignored or didn't read the article list information prior to adding players). RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't think "internationalists" is a widely-used word...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Linking countries?

How should we go about this topic? It seems that we completely avoid linking countries in any form (be it in the infobox, lede, main body, etc.), which is what I also personally do. However, MOS:OVERLINK states: The following [is] usually not linked: [t]he names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of [...] countries [and] locations [...] what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. Now, it seems that we should be writing "Beirut, Lebanon" (instead of Beirut, Lebanon) and "New York City, United States" (rather than "New York City, United States"), as Beirut and Lebanon are not as globally recognizable as New York and the US.

Also, there is the whole topic of former countries, should those be linked (e.g. Soviet Union or Yugoslavia)? Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to link former countries (as it gives an appropriate historical context), but not current countries. GiantSnowman 12:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you think we should we revisit our standard, following the MOS? Also, I'm not too sure about former countries. If Italy were to cease to exist, we would have to backtrack and edit tens of thousands of Italian footballer infoboxes to add a link to "Italy". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything...! GiantSnowman 12:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In your situation you wouldn't be expected to go and re-link to 'Italy'... GiantSnowman 14:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Italy was just a hypothetical. My point is that countries can change, they won't stay like this forever. If a country ceases to exist, or changes its name, do we have to go and edit every footballer born in that (former) country? The MOS doesn't say anything regarding former countries, so I personally don't link them (the same way we would not link a current country). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason not to link any country in the article. Guess it's helpful for more obscure African and Asian countries etc. -Koppapa (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we can establish consensus, I'm fine with anything. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That whole line in MOS:OVERLINK is ridiculous IMO. How does one decide what is more or less known? For example: Lebanon. For an editor such as Nehme1499, who is of Lebanese origin and edits a lot of Lebanese articles, Lebanon is a very well known country. On the other hand, for someone else it might be a tiny country hardly heard about. Wikipedia, and especially English Wikipedia, is global, and therefore we can't make assumptions what people will or will not know. I think the countries should be linked. --SuperJew (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone here in this project object to linking countries (only in the infobox)? In the sense that, we wouldn't write "Andrea Pirlo is an [[Italy|Italian]] professional football...". We would keep it as "Italian". However, in the infobox Pirlo would have [[Flero]], [[Italy]], rather than [[Flero]], Italy. This way, we don't discriminate between "famous" and "not-so-famous" countries, as well as between current and defunct countries. They all become linked. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Me, for a start. Linking countries isn't a football issue. We can't and shouldn't keep trying to make up project consensus that goes against site-wide consensus as evidenced by the aforesaid MoS: if you want to change site-wide consensus, that's where to do it. But if you think Lebanon (or any other country) should be linked in any particular situation, then follow the MoS, use your editorial discretion, and link it. Just don't act surprised when someone comes along with a cleanup script and delinks it again... Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. We shouldn't be using a local consensus to override a global MoS. Links exist to help navigation not to make articles look consistent. Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, my point is exactly this. The MoS itself is pretty ambiguous. It only states that major instances of countries and cities are not to be linked. What about "lesser-known" countries? What about former countries? Some of us in this wikiproject refrain from linking countries at all (which is what I do), others only link former countries, some might link everything. I'm fine with either linking everything, or not linking anything at all. Doesn't make much sense to differentiate. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kieran Trippier

I noticed a chunk of vandalism that I've reverted, might be helpful for a few more editors to add him to their watchlist. Govvy (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Valencia CF

Is this move correct? [1] I am not so sure if the article should of been moved. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have moved it back. GiantSnowman 11:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:2020–21 Premier League table

Umm, I don't get the delete nomination, something feels fishy and disruptive. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Also 2020–21 Premier League article seems to have been heavily messed with, editors might want to check it over. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The table is on the season article and transcluded in club season articles, so a separate template is no longer needed. This follows the consensus at WT:FOOTY to include tables in the season articles (easier to spot vandalism etc). And I'm not sure your revert actually helped things as it's removed some good edits as well... Boothy m (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree there was a clear consensus at that discussion, especially regarding all standing templates. The template namespace exists for this exact purpose (transcluding code to many articles). Using the template namespace for standings, especially major competitions, still seems useful to me (can help in preventing mistakes and edit conflicts). S.A. Julio (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it's far easier to manage the template from what I see, and I see a suggestion which wasn't a consensus. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, far easier to do it via a template AFAICS. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember the 2019–20 Lebanese Premier League table template being deleted: indeed, it was deleted as part of this discussion. Apparently, this discussion on our project was used to define "consensus". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Only this season and last season's Premier League articles use a template, and the majority of European season articles do not use a template: . Seems straightforward enough to transclude the main article to the various club season articles, no? Boothy m (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Template space is prone to non-spotted vandalism due to the lack of watchers. Number 57 17:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I was watching the Championship one last season (being a Leeds fan) and there were plenty of watchers fixing any issues, I would expect the Permiership one to be watched even more. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea of putting transclusions like this trans-mainspace rather than template-space where it belongs. Sure, more people watchlist this page, but there are technical issues and also edit conflicts at play. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sure key people will keep an eye on the template and they can be semi-protected etc. I find it strange you say non-spotted vandalism, extended confirmed user access and above would be more than sufficient to stop the rag-tag crew. Govvy (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an assumption that I don't think can be relied on; as I pointed out in the original discussion, only one editor had the 2009–10 Premier League table template on their watchlist. Unfortunately, this feature (identifying the number of watchers) seems to have been scrapped. The use of templates on election articles for results tables has largely been abandoned for the same reasons as relevant here. Number 57 18:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "Unfortunately, this feature (identifying the number of watchers)" - we can still identify how many users have a certain page watchlisted. The solution is to simply have these pages watchlisted - rather than transclude from a highly trafficked page which will have many more issues. The best solution is to make it so only template editors can edit which solves all issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

And once the season is complete the template should locked as that would be classed as completed, it shouldn't need to be edited again after that. And I agree with Lee Vilenski, template editors would solve the issue also. Govvy (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) I mean you used to be able to see how many editors had a page on their watchlist. This no longer seems to work – you can see it here, but the number is now just listed as "unknown". I see no benefit to creating a separate template for information that can be transcluded from another page (and is so in most cases for the Premier League). Number 57 18:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It is visible - just not to regular editors if the number is less than 30 - as an administrator you should be able to see the amount on the page statistics. I see major issues with it being editable from a highly populated article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see anything on the Page statistics related to watchers. Where on it is this information available? Number 57 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see the info here (it says <30 watchers). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it now (I was looking under 'Page statistics' not 'Page information'). Number 57 19:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the current watchers at 7. Non-administrators will see this as "less than 30", to prevent vandalism on non-watched pages. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

An opinion in favor in separate templates for tables: As standings change rapidly during the season, it can flood the watchlists of users who are watching the page. It's easier to opt-out by un-watching a template page rather than a bundled mainspace article that has to be watched to prevent more obvious forms of vandalism. SounderBruce 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Gary Bowyer

I've been informed that these three edits of mine were "unconstructive". To use everyone's favourite business phrase, please advise. Thank you. - Seasider53 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that 95% of the copyedit is fine. The only "issue" I personally have is the initial phrase restructuring in the lede, and the linking of caretaker in the infobox. Other than that, I don't feel that a revert was needed; the best thing to do was to just retouch the lede. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 EFL Trophy

Hello, can someone look at the 2020–21 EFL Trophy article where the tables for the various group rounds appear. When they are transluded into the season articles they produce lots of white space. You can see the effect on 2020–21 Grimsby Town F.C. season. Keith D (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Belgian football expert required

Can somebody please explain why we seemingly have two articles on separate clubs with the same name - Royal Football Club Seraing and R.F.C. Seraing? GiantSnowman 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reading the articles it looks like one is a "phoenix club" of the other..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for bringing this up, GS. I thought about posting about this very topic here earlier today and actually had a very similar title in mind – but I didn't bother. :-/ Anyway: The articles could be a lot clearer about how the two entities relate to each other. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

R.F.C. Seraing claims to have been defunct in 1996 and then later re-founded (though the article says "there's no link and no fusion between these two clubs"), whereas Royal Football Club Seraing claims to be an established club which changed its name (from Royal Francs Borains) in honour of the older club. I note both clubs claim to play at the 8,207-capacity Stade du Pairay. Is therefore Royal Football Club Seraing the 'refounded club' referred to in the R.F.C. Seraing article? None of this helps with article names/disambiguation/categorisation etc. GiantSnowman 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, both web pages list the same website as the official site of each club. I looked up the website and found the history here https://www.rfc-seraing.be/historique/ and see some items from both wiki pages listed there, as if both pages are the same club? However, I'm super confused as well. One of the wiki pages says a club in in the fourth division, while the website says the club started in fourth but has been promoted. Maybe an old edit? I'm still confused although I've only done about 3 minutes of research on this RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked up their "matricule numbers" on the Belgian Football Website list and it lists two: RFC Seraing (#167) and Seraing Athletique RFC (#6383). Maybe one of these clubs is meant to be the latter? RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

based on their articles (poorly written and referenced!), the current club Royal Football Club Seraing appears to be #167 whereas the defunct club R.F.C. Seraing had #17. GiantSnowman 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the defunct club R.F.C. Seraing is moved to F.C. Sérésien, the name it was known by between 1900 and 1994, and that Royal Football Club Seraing is moved to R.F.C. Seraing. We can then hatnote between the two. Comments on this before I start a RM? GiantSnowman 16:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I did some more research (this is a really confusing situation) using French wikipedia and the club website. I started with the French Wiki for the Stadium which showed me that three clubs with that name used it: First was the Original club with the matricule #17 that was absorbed by Standard Liege (#16) in 1996 with #17 disappearing. Then there was the second club that came after with matricule #23, (originally known as Seresian RFC) who renamed themselves to RFC following the original's dssolution. This new club was then absorbed by Racing Charleroi Couillet Fleurus (#94) and the #23 team disappeared. Then it appears another new reincarnation was formed in 2014 under the name Serraing United (167) under #167 which was a previously existing club known as Royal Francs-Borains/Royal Boussu-Dour Borinage (that name also redirects to the current english article Royal Football Club Serraing), and then the following year they renamed to RFC Seraing (the 'third' club to use that name) and are currently active. So, I think there have been 3 clubs to use this name (2 defunct that were absorbed by other teams and then the newest currently active team). Based on the Current Club Website History it appears they group all three clubs histories together into one, including all of what I said earlier in this paragraph.Hope that explanation makes sense. Assuming I understood it correctly, I feel we should either have three articles (for each of the three incarnations of the team) or merge them all into one article and make note in their history prose section similar to the article U.S. Grosseto 1912 which has a somewhat similar situation (2 defunct clubs and 1 current), granted Grosseto's three incarnations had slightly different names. So I think currently the Royal Football Club article is the currently existing club, the RFC article is the second club 23 and the original club 17 does not have an article. Before a RM is started, I feel the articles should be cleaned up first. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Transfer speculation / rumours

Hi people, just wondering what the rules or guidelines are regarding transfer rumours and speculations. I made an edit to Aaron Hickey under the presumtion that clubs merely being linked in the press to a player is not noteworthy, even if it's sourced to a reputable website, and the edit was reverted. ItsKesha (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that merely mentioning the rumors (highlighting that they are, indeed, rumours or that it's just interest) is not a problem. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:NOTSPECULATION or WP:NOTNEWS. If we reported every time a player was rumoured to be moving, the articles would be never-ending. Spike 'em (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I normally agree that speculation should not be included; however, the difference with hickey is the amount and quality of the articles about his proposed move. GiantSnowman 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would only mention it if there's an absolute firestorm of publicity about potential moves for a player. Look at it from the point of view of future history - if WP is still around in 100 years' time, will anyone care that in 2020 Dave Example was briefly rumoured to be joining Burnley before ultimately joining Leicester......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not needed. If we do add every rumour for every player this would get out of hand. Kante4 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, sorry, please can we back track and can people actually read the sources/article before commenting? This is not a red top tabloid saying "John Smith linked with shock £40 million transfer to Chelsea" or whatever (I agree that should never be included), this is multiple reliable sources (including BBC and Scotsman) talking about seemingly advanced transfer talks, including Hickey actually physically visiting the clubs in question, as confirmed by BBC. GiantSnowman 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Player visits club for transfer talks". And? What's the story here, why is it important? ItsKesha (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Still, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE applies. Wait until they either sign- at which time we won't need to speculate anymore- or they don't sign, in which case it's not needed in this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, then why report on anything? Why report on the transfer itself - that is, after all, just news, right? GiantSnowman 13:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A rumour is a rumour. Still should not be included. Player visit clubs for transfer talks all the time, adding them all would be crazy. Kante4 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between including baseless speculation and including good journalism about the progress of a deal. To use a real-life example of what User:ChrisTheDude said above, where would we stand on Paul Gascoigne and the fact that he was nailed-on to sign for Manchester United in 1988? Based on the above comments, it feels like some people wouldn't include that info in Gascoigne's article because he didn't end up signing for Man Utd. – PeeJay 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Gazza literally agreed terms to sign for United and promised the manager he would sign, this has been well reported for 30 years and is out of the norm for most deals. Similarly Keane telling Dalglish he'd sign for Blackburn before doing a U-turn. These are well-sourced incidents with a story to tell. Bournemouth and Walsall being linked in the press with John Smith before he signs for Hartlepool, so what, again what's the story and why is it notable? ItsKesha (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, totally different. People agree and sign and back off, that should be included. But being linked to some teams, nah, that's too much. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha, you've contradicted yourself here re:Hickey. As PeeJay points out, this is more like the Gazza example (which you admit is noteworthy) than a routine tabloid 'X linked with transfer to Y' piece. So why do you want to remove it? GiantSnowman 14:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Gazza had a verbal contract with Ferguson for a national record fee before famously reneging, Keane had a verbal contract with Dalglish for a national record fee before famously reneging, Hickey has visited a couple of training grounds in other countries to maybe join the reserves. Imagine even pretending they're similar. ItsKesha (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't know what documents have or have not been signed by Hickey, what has been promised to who. Him visiting the training grounds, and that being reported on multiple times by multiple reliable sources makes it closer to the Gazza example than to standard tabloid gossip. GiantSnowman 14:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your link says nothing about Bayern even bidding for him, let alone him committing to signing for them, so let's be real, it's nothing like the Gazza story. The press have said he visited the training facilities on an unspecified date for an unspecified purpose. That's the story you are able to tell in using this information on the article. Do you actually believe that Player X visiting the training ground of Club Y is worthy of inclusion? If so, can you explain why? ItsKesha (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Read what I said for once. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The amount of coverage of this topic is substantial. GiantSnowman 15:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read it and treated it as the nonsense it was. "We don't know what goes on but I will include it anyway". Brilliant. WP:NOTNEWS. ItsKesha (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources report. I have (easily!) found and added a bunch more from Scotsman/BBC. Do usual transfer rumours get this extent of coverage in reliable, mainstream sources? If your answer is 'no' then you agree that this is not a usual transfer rumour (and should therefore be included); if your answer is 'yes' then I am afraid you are incorrect and it is you who is spouting the nonsense. GiantSnowman 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Do usual transfer rumours get this extent of coverage in reliable, mainstream sources?" - Yes lmao have you ever paid any attention to the British press? It happens all the time. One of your mainstream reputable sources says there was 15 scouts from all over watching a Bodo/Glimt player. It isn't a rare, incredible thing for clubs to be "interested" in a teenage footballer. ItsKesha (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User AlwaysLearning

There was once a Portugese-speaking editor on this Wiki, mostly editing Iberian football articles on a static IP called AlwaysLearning or AL. He made a few accounts but then would shortly abandoned each of them due to the hassle of it, going back to IP editing. Is anyone still in contact with AL and/or if he has gotten back to editing? Whilst this field is outside of my interest, I encountered him while doing anti-vandalism runs about 5 years back and would bump into him every now and then and drop in to say hi. I've not seen him about in a few years now and it would be nice to hear that he's at least well in the current climate. Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Most recently he was Quite A Character, hadn't been doing too much in recent months after (un)officially retiring after a dispute, and now has done so again I think, can always check with him. Would be a shame for the community to lose his contributions (but some of the edit summaries less so). Crowsus (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You should be able to contact them at User talk:Quite A Character. Robby.is.on (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus: @Robby.is.on: Ah yes, I didn't realise this account was still active as it said "retired" when I visited it earlier on. I just checked the edit history and it appears I missed him by three days :( Check the diff. At least I know he still edits at least! Thanks again chaps! :) UaMaol (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Feeling bored during the pandemic? Try and entertain yourself by referencing BLPs - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list... GiantSnowman 09:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PFA Players' Player of the Year‎‎

Does anyone know if there's any news on when/if this award will be presented? I can't find anything, but might have missed something somewhere. It's getting very annoying reverting the addition of Kevin De Bruyne as this year's winner based on people misunderstanding news reports about him winning the Premier League Player of the Year, a totally different award........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of awards have gone the Ballon d'Or route and decided not to give an award this year. They received much less fan fare than the Ballon d'Or of course. Port Vale had podcasts discussing the their annual award, local newspaper stories about it, website announcements about the vote. Then everyone just forgot about it somehow. It's annoying because it definitely wasn't cancelled and it's hard to put a entry into the article to say "the club forgot this year".--EchetusXe 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, at the end of last month, the BBC was still talking in terms of the PFA award happening but gave no indication of when they thought it would take place........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Four contenders emerge in fierce debate for Port Vale player of the year (4 June). Either people have amnesia or they are holding out for a loosening of restrictions so they can have a proper awards dinner later on or something.--EchetusXe 08:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some clubs (such as Bradford City) have neither announced a postponement of the POTY awards nor announced its cancellation. They've just been quiet... GiantSnowman 09:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the POTY article indicating that it was postponed but as it stands there's no indication when/if it will be held. I've also put hidden notes in every place that seems relevant saying "Kevin De Bruyne has not won this award!!!!" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

2017–18 Kavala F.C. season

Hi I just came across 2017–18 Kavala F.C. season. Does it pass WP:NSEASONS? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they played in the 4th tier of Greek football that season. GiantSnowman 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple there that should all be deleted. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: What about this [2] one? I think others for this club are notable but this should be deleted. Also this one is almost empty. Alex (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Apostrophe in club title (Ladies teams)

What do you think of these moves. There is already some talk on user's talk page. Never seen it used this way. User claims it's typo without. -Koppapa (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Apostrophe makes it possessive. Without an Apostrophe the word is a noun. It is not the team belonging to the Ladies, it is the Ladies team (a noun). So it should not have the apostrophe. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Notts County Ladies, for example, works on the same principle as Arsenal Women, just using a different word for the gender of the players. It's not a possessive -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No question. But this was brought up earlier today at AN/I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Alistair1978 I suggest we keep the discussion of this issue in one place. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - please comment at ANI. GiantSnowman 21:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Europa League

I am a bit concerned that all the covid notes might over stretch the article, not sure, but should the notes be setup in a collapsable format? Also, is the data length okay there? Govvy (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Henderson

This again, [3], I swear User:Vaze50 is becoming disruptive on Hdenderson's article, seems to want to go by his own rules. And not to mention reverting an admin. The honours are not cluttered, there are not that many unlike Lionel Messi. Can we sort this out. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted, and agree it's disruptive. I suggest you and/or Matty seek a topic ban at ANI if he is going to repeatedly and disruptively edit against consensus. GiantSnowman 16:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, GiantSnowman, there is not consensus. You and Govvy have repeatedly said that there is, but each time you do, you point towards discussions that have ended in deadlock, with an equal number of people in support, and an equal number of people opposed. However, unfortunately, I have learned the hard way that you, Govvy and Mattythewhite are a group of bullies who will hound anybody who doesn't do what you want them to. So go ahead, keep claiming a consensus exists when you cannot demonstrate it does. The only opinions on this subject that matter are yours and Mattythewhite's, since you two (especially the latter) are totally (and more often than not unpleasantly) intolerant of other views and will say anything - even claiming consensus when there isn't one - to keep things the way you want them. Don't bother "seek"ing anything, I'm not going to change anything anymore. The articles on Wikipedia can stay completely inconsistent, while you can keep pretending there's a consensus. You guys can be the ones who can remain satisfied with a situation where hundreds of player/manager articles have runner-ups listed, and hundreds don't, and then complain when people seem to be confused... Vaze50 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review my article

I know this isn't the right place but please someone should review this article for me, if it's good to be on Wikipedia. If yes, I would like to go ahead and create the other ones. Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to me - and therefore non-notable. GiantSnowman 14:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Valid?

See this edit. While technically it is true that an Isthmian League team could win the FA Cup and thereby qualify for Europe, the odds against it are so staggering that I really don't think it should be listed in the article. Thoughts? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's valid. I would suggest that parameter is for qualification via the league the article is on, not cup competitions its clubs are involved in. Number 57 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree with that. No Isthmian League team can qualify for a UEFA competition by virtue of their league position. – PeeJay 18:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This could technically be added to the infobox of every league in Europe, so either it's allowed for every league article or it should be limited to the top league only - I would suggest the latter. Boothy m (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi everyone, User:ItsKesha has been requesting the creation of several matches at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer). A couple I have removed as they are clearly not notable, the two which I think might be notable are Manchester United F.C. 1–6 Manchester City F.C. (2011) and Manchester City F.C. 3–2 Queens Park Rangers F.C. (2012). I think that these two could pass GNG, especially the Man City - QPR game. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly both are notable in my book :-), especially the Agueroooooo game. In recent years you could also say that Manchester City F.C. 2-1 Liverpool F.C. (2019) was a highly significant game in deciding a PL Title. (I'm not just picking City wins for the sake of it, I promise) --Ratchet8865 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The 2–1 game certainly influenced the outcome of the title race but it didn't win the title, unlike the QPR game were it was all or nothing. (For my part I promise that I'm not playing down Liverpool defeats just because I'm a reds fan.) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Create them in draft and send for review via WP:AFC. GiantSnowman 14:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the 6–1 game, but if you can find good enough sources to prove the lasting notability of the game, I might have to reconsider. Contemporary reports won't cut it. – PeeJay 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a few reports/references/rankings I've found, all since 2015. MEN 2019, FourFourTwo 2020, Sky Sports 2016, Irish Mirror 2019, BT 2019, Premier League 2016, FourFourTwo 2016, The42/TheJournal 2015, The Athletic, MEN 2020 As you can see over just the last five years it's been consistently ranked as (one of) the best Manchester derbies ever, the game has had a last legacy, and as I mentioned in the article request it broke various records. ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I'm the first person to laugh when Manchester United get beaten, especially so heavily, I don't think it's notable. You could find sources similar to the above for pretty much any Premier League game with a bizarre scoreline, especially those including "big" clubs. I'd suggest that the Aguero title-winning game is notable, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Agueroooo game hasn't already been made. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a wide variety of sources discussing games up to nine years after the fact, regularly describing it as the best or second best game of its kind, it had broke all sorts of records and was pivotal in winning a championship for the first time in 35 years, that's notable isn't it? Do people still talk about the Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal game from a week later? A brief search says nowhere near as many. ItsKesha (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the records it broke is that they were specific to those two teams, and even then some were just "the most X since year Y", which isn't a record. I would also argue that "the second best Manchester derby ever" doesn't quite meet the level of notability we should be striving for here. – PeeJay 21:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that you asked for the lasting notability of the game and you received 10 references from 2015 up to, and including, 2020. Joint biggest winning margin in the history of the fixture, joint biggest defeat by a reigning Premier League champion. Nominated as one of the 10 best games for the Premier League 20 Seasons Awards - four of the other games on that list also have pages so there is precedence even in that regard. I believe it passes WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE. ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

One Premier League record set that season was the closest ever finish to a League title. Only goal difference separated the two rivals; and in addition that separation was only determined in the 4th minute of 5 minutes of added on time at the end of the city-qpr game after united had concluded their season at Sunderland. That should adequately differentiate it from other title deciding matches. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability of individual games

So there's a deletion discussion going on for deleting Liverpool 4-0 Barcelona and it got me thinking; what actually are the guidelines for notable games, and why does every edition of the Emirates Cup, the Charity Shield, the MLS All Star, the Asia Trophy, the last 11 versions of the Amsterdam tournament, etc etc, have their own pages. Apparently a significant and historic comeback in the latter stages of a major competition is not notable, in spite of the fact it's still discussed over a year later. For example just this month John Barnes said it was the best result Liverpool had ever had. Hyperbole or not, he's not plucked a random game out the air, it's this 4-0. A historic match can't have an article as it's not notable enough yet "MLS All Star Game 2013" and "Premier League Asia Cup 2006" are deemed notable? Come on. Yes, Barcelona vs Liverpool in 2007 wasn't notable. Of course Ipswich Town vs Coventry City from 1994 wasn't notable. But I had somebody try and tell me Manchester United 1-6 Manchester City wasn't notable! ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Short names in Infobox football club

Can I ask...why? Why does this field exist? I guess it's been in the template for awhile but someone just started filling it in on a bunch of clubs recently. Where are these short names being sourced from and why are so they important they must be included in the infobox? Lazer-kitty (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It can be useful to show; Manchester United can be shortened to Man United, Short name of Tottenham Hotspur can be Spurs. However you need to watch that field, often editors add acronyms and that's not whats it is for. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I am in favour of removing this field from the infobox. I don't think it adds anything that is worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Alternative names can be listed in the intro. Number 57 11:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Something like "Spurs" should just go in the nicknames field. There's no need to list a team's common abbreviations in an article, especially not in the infobox. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Number 57, I don't see much need for the element to be in the infobox. Govvy (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming of German and Austrian clubs

What naming for German and Austrian football clubs should we use, in particular for Wolfsberger AC, and should we follow WP:KARLSRUHER or not? Alex (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We have one user who again keeps making disruptive edits in 2019–20 UEFA Europa League and few other related articles by changing Wolfsberger AC to Wolfsberg. As we know, current consensus, which is being followed for like 10 years, is using WP:KARLSRUHER for naming of German-language clubs. But he just ignores current consensus and refuses to stop edit warring. There was a discussion about that last year [4], but this guy just can't calm down, so we need to discuss it again and decide what naming will be used everywhere. Alex (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, good explanation of why it's best to do it that way, and avoids making nonsense translations of German. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Alex95-Ukraine: If you're going to call me out in public, at least have the decency to ping me. Anyway, the only value I see in WP:KARLSRUHER is the instruction that constructions such as "Hamburger SV" should not be contracted to "Hamburger", as we might do in English to remove the F.C. from "Manchester United F.C." to get the club's common name. The fact is, that essay is one user's opinion and yet we have editors here who cling to it like it's the Ten Commandments brought down from the mountain by Moses. If there were a possibility of confusing the Wolfsburg and Wolfsberg sides that competed in this season's UEFA Europa League with any other teams, then yes, of course it makes sense to use their full names as a way of disambiguating, but no other clubs by those names have ever qualified for Europe; these are the teams from those cities that are the best known, and they are well known by their short names, which are indeed in common use. The essay claims that short names should never be used in tables, infoboxes, fixtures, etc. but doesn't give any reason for this. I can see why it's been accepted by the community, as it's a fairly comprehensive prescription of how to refer to German-speaking clubs, but I fear it's never been exposed to any actual scrutiny and people are now just using it as an easy fallback. – PeeJay 10:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Use WP:KARLSRUHER per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, as this is how it's done for German teams. Kante4 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, per common usage. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Has anyone yet provided any reason why we follow WP:KARLSRUHER? You lot are all saying "this is how we do it", but no one has given any reason? – PeeJay 15:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:KARLSRUHER demonstrates why we should use it, becaude Karlruher is an adjective and not a noun, and so it makes no grammatical sense to shorten. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's not the section I'm talking about. I know how German works, and I understand that grammatical construction. Of course it doesn't make sense to shorten Karlsruher SC to "Karlsruher", but it does make sense to shorten it to "Karlsruhe". Besides, your argument is circular; you're using assertions in WP:KARLSRUHER as an argument for their own existence. As User:Spike 'em pointed out below, there is no reference in WP:KARLSRUHER to how German-speaking clubs are referred to in English-language media, so again, what reason do we have not to shorten club names to recognisable short versions? – PeeJay 21:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• By way of explanation, the removal FC extensions is a British standard that makes sense in Britain where almost every club is an FC or AFC, but does not necessarily work elsewhere. In the German speaking world, for a variety of linguistic and historical reasons, there is a much wider variety of letter extensions in common ues, resulting the letter extensions often being considered an integral part of a club's name. Shortening, for example, VfB Suttgart to Stuttgart is much more akin to shorting Manchester United to Manchester, reasonable to do in prose where there's context, but not elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the essay would carry a lot more weight if used English language sources. This is the English, not German wikipedia, so we should be writing in a way that makes sense to English language readers. Spike 'em (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Delightfully, BBC Sport refers to them as RZ Pellets WAC, but that does nothing to solve this problem. Looking through archived copies of the Bundesliga table on BBC Sport, full names are generally used (i.e. VfB Stuttgart), though BBC Sport oddly goes with Hamburg SV here. The majority of English language sources use full names for clubs from German-speaking countries, so I see no reason to use shortened names which are sparsely used in sources. WP:KARLSRUHER seems to be the most effective way to approach this problem. Also, having 'Wolfsburg' and 'Wolfsberg' on the same page will surely confuse everyone. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

At last, someone has provided some real-world examples of WP:KARLSRUHER in effect. Fair enough. But what about this example of the BBC referring to VfL Wolfsburg as just "Wolfsburg"? I'm not trying to use this as a 'gotcha' moment, I'm honestly just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to insist that we refer to these clubs by their full names every time. I've never disagreed that it might make sense to use the long name at the first instance, but this obsession with calling them "VfL Wolfsburg" and "Wolfsberger AC" every single time is utterly potty. Also, I think you're giving readers too little credit to assume they would be confused between Wolfsburg and Wolfsberg; the fact that they're spelled differently should be enough. – PeeJay 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Short names do seem to be used more frequently in prose in English language sources. However, as pointed out in WP:KARLSRUHER, it can create ambiguity and it is generally avoided outside of prose for that reason. Also, Leeds United are often referred to as 'Leeds' in sources (here, here and here), but that doesn't make it correct to refer to them as just 'Leeds'. Also, I get the spellings of both clubs confused, so I'm not sure a one-letter difference is enough. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER per Sir Sputnik's explanation, this is how German clubs are most commonly referred to. Many English language sources use the full club names (for example here and here), hence KARLSRUHER should be followed. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow WP:KARLSRUHER, it should be used consistently. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Follow KARLSRUHER as above arguments/explanations as to why. GiantSnowman 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like consensus to use Karlsruher or? Kante4 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Lists of transfers by nation

At the start of today, List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 looked like this. I'm sure most of you would agree that the "Sorted by team" section is pretty pointless given the sortability of the tables that group the transfers by date, so I deleted the "Sorted by date" section and merged the month-by-month tables into one big table that can be sorted at will. This apparently didn't sit well with User:Pelotas, who - after discussion with me at Talk:List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 – decided to create Overview of the summer 2020 Belgian football transfer window, which is basically the same as the article that existed at List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020 at the start of the day. This smacks of WP:OWN to me, since Pelotas apparently wasn't happy with the way another editor was treating "their" article. I've obviously redirected that new article to the old one, but the issue remains that there are two starkly different styles of article in Category:Football transfers summer 2020. From what I can see, only Australia, Belgium (as of today), Canada, England, Italy, MLS and Scotland use the single-table-sorted-chronologically format, which I would argue is the better format but is in the vast minority. Because of this, I'd like to canvass for opinions about how we should reconcile these differences. No one has yet presented me with any compelling argument as to why the other format is at all preferable, but I'm always open to good arguments. – PeeJay 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I totally agree with PeeJay on WP:OWN, I'm just frustrated by the process where all work gets deleted because someone suddenly finds it's not according to policy and then having to discuss to get it back. (Note this format goes back to 2008... I've been creating this for the last 12 years). Not saying it's 'mine', but understand my frustration at least. Anyway, more on topic, I believe there is information in both the listing 'per date' view and 'per club' view which is missing in the other. The two combined are imho what users are looking for when visiting the page, these are overviews of what is happening in the transfer window, rather than a 'basic' list of just transfers (for instance by not including loan returnees) per date. Imho this is probably also the reason why, if you insist on having just one view, you will find more articles listing the transfers per club than when the transfers occurred exactly, as football fans, in particular, will likely want an overview of their club's transfers and don't care whether their star signing arrived on 17, 18 or 19 August. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) ... Oh and that's why I created the 'overview' page to start with, if you insist on having a list of transfers which is just that, a list, then keep that but on the 'overview' page elaborate for each club what happened during the transfer window? So keeping the 'by club' view including a written summary for each club maybe? Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The amount of Belgian national flags on that original page just made my eyes bleed. JMHamo (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that was another thing I changed. I think it's been established pretty well that flags should be used sparingly, if at all, and the way we would normally enact that in these articles is by saying "everyone without a flag is assumed to be <nationality X>". – PeeJay 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My real question would be why do we have articles like this anyway? I know we have lots for every transfer window in many countries, but my question is why? Fails WP:NOTSTATS, and they don't seem to serve any useful purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the overall activity in a transfer window is of encyclopaedic merit. BBC Sport updates an article on their home page with a list of all the transfers each month, not just for each club, so it's not like there isn't precedent. – PeeJay 15:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So does anyone have any opinions on what format we should use? Apparently a similar topic came up a couple of years ago (here), but only User:GiantSnowman responded. Would be nice to be able to nail down a format (although that seems impossible for this WikiProject in recent years!) – PeeJay 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I also don't like flag-icons in these tables and feel we should scrap that, I do prefer tables separated by month myself. However this Belgium table;

• Issue one, date format is wrong, Belgium use DMY.
• No need to use bold text.
• loans and transfers should be separated to different tables.

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Why should loans and transfers be separate? The average reader doesn't care that technically the contract is different. They care about the movements in and out of their club's squad. --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Loans and transfers should be separate so that you can have a loan table where the date the loan ends is included and the fee is left out. See here for an example. – PeeJay 09:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Personally I'd drop both the end date and the fee columns (at least in Australia where I mostly edit, 95% of the transfers are free). --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this since most transfer fees are undisclosed or free these days, but there are still enough cases where the fee is reported (and substantial) that it makes it useful to be able to sort by the fee to work out what the most expensive (disclosed) transfer was during that window. Also, not all loans are the same duration, so the "End date" column is useful for the loan table (assuming we have one of those). – PeeJay 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: BTW, regarding the example you linked, I'd suggest removing all the English flags from players too and add to the note that Clubs without flags are English that players without flags are English (like done here. --SuperJew (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. No need for a metric fuckton of English flags when the article title literally says "English" right there. – PeeJay 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A loan isn't a transfer! It's simply a loan, a loan in a transfer list then becomes misinformation. Govvy (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why imho the naming of these articles is wrong. SuperJew is right in that the readers want to know all players moving in and out or a club, whether it's permanent or on loan is less relevant but both part of the full picture, but I can follow the reasoning that a loan is not a transfer. So, rename this to 2020 Belgian football summer transfer window, dropping the 'list' part in the name will allow to create an article which spans what users want... Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh and on the other comments, I dislike having just a few flags as it is ugly (either use none or use smaller ones ?) and if you split the tables by month then the argument that you can sort to have a view by team is entirely gone. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not too bother about splitting per month or not, it was just my preference. Because I find that more manageable to navigate and read. Too many people seem to like to use flag-icons, and giving my condition! I kind of dislike the use of flag-icons. If we did an RfC I would vote to abolish the use on transfer articles. On a side note, Someone noted this article List of Chinese football transfers winter 2018 it looks pretty bugged out on the data limit or something. Govvy (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok and what about the split "per month" vs "per club"? The original statement: I'm sure most of you would agree that the "Sorted by team" section is pretty pointless is imho invalid and I haven't seen any remarks in that direction yet rather the opposite. If possible I would like a decision on the format rather quickly as although it is not "my article", I refuse to do any more edits on this article until the format is decided upon as at least it is "my spare time" which I don't wan't to use on articles I don't support, but in the meantime, several transfers have occurred (Barnabás Bese, Dylan De Belder, Kristiyan Malinov, Robbe Quirynen & Trent Sainsbury) Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the article into your own userspace and make updates there if you don't want to edit the mainspace article. That way you can keep track of everything that's going on without having to contribute to an article you don't support. Nothing wrong with that. But yes, the point of this discussion is not to quibble over minutiae in these articles but to decide what macro-format they should take. Are we doing it club-by-club or are we having a single, master table sorted chronologically? – PeeJay 09:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Just FYI: you have no idea how frustrating this is, especially this statement: "Feel free to copy the article into your own userspace and make updates there if you don't want to edit the mainspace article". Should be the other way around imho: keep the current good format and discuss whether there is another one which might be better and if so, then adapt. What gives anyone the right to just change as they deem fit, basically saying "go have fun in your sandbox" while we discuss whether this is actually what we want. I mean for blocking vandalism ok... but these are good faith edits with references. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pelotas: You know what, that's totally fair. Restore the article to the way it was while this discussion is happening. Better to keep it updated for readers than to leave it by the wayside. – PeeJay 14:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC) - Thanks Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a single table is better. "club-by-club" creates a lot of redundant duplicity. The single table can be sortable by column and that way a user can get the same info as seeing "club-by-club" table. --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay you forgot option three, namely to change the article to 2020 Belgian football summer transfer window which includes at least the "club-by-club" list of transfers (and possibly as well the chronological) but most importantly is not restricted to 'transfers' alone but includes as well all the players on loan, retirements, contract terminations etc... to give a full picture of what happened during the transfer window. Also it is more than just a list, allowing to elaborate for each club on the most important changes through a short summary. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't forget that option. I actually think that's the worst option of the three. As I and SuperJew have noted, including the club-by-club list duplicates every transfer between two Belgian teams, so shouldn't be included (IMO). I have also never said that loans shouldn't be included, but I think they should be in a separate table to allow all the relevant information to be included properly (see List of English football transfers summer 2020). I disagree with including retirements and contract terminations though, as I think transfers should only be listed when a player joins a new club, not simply when he leaves his old one. If readers want to know about a specific club's movements during a particular season, they should go to that club's season article, e.g. 2020–21 R.S.C. Anderlecht season. I noticed there was no transfer info in the 2019–20 R.S.C. Anderlecht season article, but there should be. I don't know if that article just wasn't properly maintained or if people actively thought transfers shouldn't be listed there, but transfer info is always included in English clubs' season articles, so why not the Belgians? – PeeJay 12:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: By the way on retirements... Vincent Kompany retired three days ago. Seems to me this is an excellent example of a player who is not "transferred", yet very relevant on the page. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Kompany is a prominent player, that's true, but his retirement is not a transfer. Players retire all the time, at every level of the game, so how do you decide which players' retirements to include? That sort of thing would get us into dicey territory, as we would essentially be deciding our own criteria for that, which is probably a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. – PeeJay 15:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not proposing to decide between prominent or not... just think they should all be included. But again for me it boils down to the words "list" and "transfers" being in the title which are blocking from putting the required content on the article. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pelotas that in my opinion also retirements and released players should be included. Regarding released players (or "transfer" to "Unattached" as it is usually noted), at least where I edit (Australian soccer) there aren't any real transfers, but rather players are released and then signed by another club. And anyway I think the page is useful as an overview of movements, and most movement overview pages in media includes players who left not on a transfer. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Myeh, but as SuperJew and myself have also noted, users are looking for an overview per club, not a chronological view, so IMHO, the current revised version is the worst option :). I agree that club season pages should contain a transfer overview, but there are fewer Belgian users I suppose so the club season articles are less elaborate (actually this is the first season they all exist in the first place). I've been adding these overviews for instance for Oud-Heverlee Leuven here: 2019–20 Oud-Heverlee Leuven season#Transfers. Notice there's a lot more info there!. However, there is value as well in seeing all simple transfer overviews of all clubs together as well. One club might be strengthened but it's always to be seen in comparison with the direct opponents. But it would be a good idea to have each individual club's section on the new page to be reused on the season article of each individual club indeed. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 12:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the issue of transfers being duplicated from one club to the next though. On page specifically designed to list all transfers, picking a format that actively duplicates information is not the best idea in my book. – PeeJay 12:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but a 'list of transfers' which is just that (whether including loans or not) is imho useless... hence the proposal to draw it open, but yes, there are some duplicates as a limited number of transfers (loans more so) will be between Belgian clubs indeed, nothing is perfect. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't agree with saying users are looking for an overview per club, and like PeeJay I said that such a format creates unnecessary duplicity. In my view it should be one table (or one per window), which is sortable. Once it's sortable a user can get an overview for a specific club by sorting per club. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies SuperJew, I concluded that from your statement that football fans "care about the movements in and out of their club's squad". On your other remark, it is NOT true that one can get an overview of the transfers per club when the table is sortable. Try that for one of the clubs in the middle of the alphabet, it's impractical to say the least... first sort by IN, then scroll all the way down, then scroll all the way back up to click OUT and scroll down again to see the outgoing players... oh but wait which players came in again? Start scrolling. Not to mention comparing teams. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 10:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

These transfers would also be on the clubs' season pages, where there are only the transfers relevant to that club. I still think this is preferable to having a lot of duplicity on the league transfer pages (especially leagues like the A-League where there's a lot of inter-league movements). --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning. But an overview of the transfer window should in my opinion consist of a series of separate club overviews detailing the in- and outflows per club (what users will look for), rather than a dull list of chronological transfers (fitting the strict definition of "list of transfers"). Note as well that the vast majority of the currently active lists (summer 2020) have kept only the "by-club-view" (Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Israel, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Ukraine rather than the "by-date-view" (England, Italy and Scotland. Also have a look at Spain which has the "by-club-view" with integrated information of the transfer date, best of both? (But yes, still the 'duplicity'). Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 22:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I should probably add that using the {{fs start}}, {{fs player}} and {{fs end}} templates to build such a page runs the risk of breaking the article itself. If you look at these pages, you'll see that the Wiki platform is literally incapable of rendering the page properly. Wikitables avoid that, although we need to be careful about adding too many flagicons and citation templates. – PeeJay 12:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Lyon - MLS Pool infobox

I have a question about how the Infobox should be displayed for Charlie Lyon. Some background information for those unfamiliar with this aspect of Major League Soccer. MLS has an emergency goalkeeper signed to the league, who the league loans out to teams in case of an emergency where the team has multiple keepers injured. Previously, I listed the fact that he was the pool keeper in his Infobox and grouped his various loans under it - See here (and instead of 0(0) for apps, I left it blank. However, another user reverted me because "MLS Pool" isn't a team, which I know it isn't, however, by not showing it, it makes his Infobox look like he is under contract to another team and going on loan from them - See current. I feel like this is an example of where "an exception to the standard would be better" and provide the reader with a better understanding of the situation. Here's an article explaining his role. Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this unique player situation. Would also apply to Caleb Patterson-Sewell. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What a bizarre set up. I agree you cannot show him 'on loan' under a previous contracted team, as it appears he is on loan from them. In these unique examples, could you simply get rid of the 'on loan' aspect, and instead add a note using {{Efn}} next to those teams in the infobox explaining? GiantSnowman 21:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We could add a sentence on the MLS page about the emergency goalkeeper setup and set the infobox link to [[Major League Soccer#Player acquisition and salaries|MLS Pool]] with the explanatory note per User:GiantSnowman's suggestion. Hack (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a section at Major League Soccer#MLS Pool Goalkeeper. I'm surprised it was not mentioned before. I feel like it should be included in the MLS article, regardless of the outcome here. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hack's suggestion works. GiantSnowman 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hack's suggestion is my preference as well RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Milkloverfan who was also involved in the edits as to whether or not MLS Pool should appear in the Infobox for Charlie Lyon to ask for his opinion RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think "MLS Pool" should appear in the Infobox for Charlie Lyon. That sounds unorthodoxy and confusing to the user. "MLS Pool" isn't a team name. Milkloverfan (talk)

Then what is your suggestion? It's far more accurate than having him 'on loan' from a former club... GiantSnowman 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Would a compromise be to not show MLS Pool in the infobox as if it were a club, but to show each of the teams he was assigned to with "(MLS pool GK)" or similar in brackets rather than "(loan)"? And with no arrow before it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the 'on loan' from the Infobox - specifically for the following teams Lyon has been the pool goalkeeper to. Add [[Major League Soccer#Player acquisition and salaries|MLS Pool]] to "but is operating as a pool goalkeeper for MLS". Milkloverfan (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Three options then suggested above and demonstrated here:

Option 1

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2019–	MLS Pool
2020	→ CLUB FC (loan)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Option 2

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2020	CLUB FC	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Option 3

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2020	CLUB FC (loan from the MLS Pool)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

My preference is option 2. GiantSnowman 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ChrisTheDude's suggestion could work although it is officially a loan. This situation came up last month where Vancouver needed a goalie, but couldn't use Lyon because it was outside the transfer window so his ITC couldn't be sent to Canada and the other pool keeper (Patterson Sewell who they could have used since his ITC is in Canada wasn't available Link). So, I'm okay with this option, but technically Hack's suggestion is more accurate. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 seems nice. I'm fine with that. Milkloverfan (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 is my preference. He is 'officially signed' to MLS Pool and each time he joins a team it is a Fifa-sanctioned loan RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for me – I think it's worth noting that he's signed to the MLS Pool and this is the neatest was of the two of doing it. Number 57 18:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 makes the most sense in my eyes. Worth mentioning he's signed to the MLS Pool, even if he ends up not being loaned to anyone due to the circumstances of injuries not coming up. --SuperJew (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well he has been loaned three times already, which is why I feel it's even more important to list it. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 I would go for number 1 myself. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - given the !votes above, I'm happy to also plump with Option 1. GiantSnowman 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Would this be considered WP:CONSENSUS? Can I go ahead and edit this and the other articles with players who have been pool goalkeepers? RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

yep; I think the discussion has been going on for ling enough, there has been sufficient discussion/imput, and the consensus is clear. GiantSnowman 16:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A surprising redlink

I found a surprising redlink: football match. Any suggestions for a redirect target?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to say Football, but American football generally calls it a "game", not a "match". So I'd suggest Association football. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms? GiantSnowman 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with GS and BK. football game is also red, so maybe that should go to Glossary of American football? Crowsus (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of these need linking to a specific sport's glossary. Shouldn't there be a more general article called Match (sport) or something? Although the parameters are different for each sport, the concept of a match is not unique to any of them. – PeeJay 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Inter, Milan, and Inter Milan

Is here a consensus on how F.C. Internazionale Milano and A.C. Milan should be displayed in players' infoboxes?

1. Inter Milan, Inter, or Internazionale?
2. Milan, A.C. Milan, or AC Milan?

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Inter Milan and Milan, or Internazionale and Milan. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Redman. GiantSnowman 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So, Inter Milan and Internazionale can be used interchangeably? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I would say you could probably also use just "Inter" for a bit of variation. The only time to use "A.C. Milan" is when Inter are also mentioned in the same context. Usually, just "Milan" is fine. – PeeJay 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I'm strictly talking about the infobox. Shouldn't we stick to one? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I would stick with "Internazionale" and "Milan" then. – PeeJay 19:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Inter Milan" over "Internazionale". Whenever I hear the team discussed I usually here them referred to as Inter or Inter Milan (at least over here in North America). For AC Milan, just "Milan" is fine, although also I'm okay with seeing it displayed as "AC Milan" as well. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Transfer lists on a season page - Players who leave on a free transfer following Contract Expiration

What do we do with players who leave on a free transfer following a contract expiration/contract release. For example, on a transfer table in a season article in the "Out" section for their new team. I've usually included the new team in the "Transferred To/New Club" section to show where the player ended up and I've seen it done this way many times on many articles. However, I just got reverted by a user who says this is wrong and we have to leave the section blank here saying including a club is misinformation and cannot put the club the player moved to on a Free Transfer. RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think if the player is released to a free transfer, with no information or future contract, then it should be listed as "moved" to unattached. The period of time between the player's release and their joining a new team is variable. Common sense we won't write the team a player joined a few months after being released by original team, so therefore should only be written if it's clear that was released to free so that can join the new team (as happens for example often in Australia A-League due to their being no intra-league transfer fees). --SuperJew (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If a player is released at the end of their contract then put them as 'moving to' '"unattached" or similar. If they are released early in order to sign for a new club on a free transfer (such as Callum Whelan recently, where he was released by Watford on the same day he signed for Oldham, clearly as part of some kind of transfer arrangement) then put them as 'moving to' the new club. GiantSnowman 07:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if the player signs for a new team on the same day as the release, it's probably fine to say they moved directly to the new team, but otherwise I would also go with "Unattached" as the new "club". If they join a new club in the same transfer window, however, I would probably include that as a note as we did in the 2019–20 Manchester United F.C. season#Out article. – PeeJay 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Professional footballers want Justice from wikipedia!!!

Why a Bangladeshi Professional Football player can't create a wiki page who plays at Bangladesh Premier League (Footbal) ?

Example : Anisur Rahman Zico is the first goalkeeper for the Bangladesh Premier League champions Bashundhara Kings. But we aren't able to create a football player's page for him and other local players who didn't have the debue for national team!! Fahim Mokbul Ur Rahman (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fahim Mokbul Ur Rahman: Footballers do not qualify for a Wikipedia article if they have not played in a fully professional league. Please see WP:NFOOTY and WP:NOTFPL for more information. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually such footballers can qualify if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (see [[WP:GNG). Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

EFL Trophy whitespace

Has reared its head again. I brought it up on the template talk page a few weeks ago. No response there, but KeithD mentioned it in here, after which it was fixed (temporarily, it seems). See here for an example of the issue. - Seasider53 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've repeated what PeeJay did last time and it seems to be better. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Did it work? It seems fairly obvious to me that the </onlyinclude> tag needs to be on the same line as the curly brackets that close the template or else you'll get an extra line break in whatever articles the tables are transcluded to. Pretty simple stuff, no? – PeeJay 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I'm watching that page now to check no one adds that line break back in again. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Annoyingly, it happens automatically when people use Visual Editor... Hence this edit creating the problem. Number 57 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a known bug with VisualEditor, happens all the time with biography infoboxes. GiantSnowman 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bournemouth or AFC Bournemouth

When looking through the Bournemouth player articles some of the players have their club referred to as AFC Bournemouth throughout, (eg. Dominic Solanke) whereas on others it's just Bournemouth (eg. Steve Cook), apart from Diego Rico whose page uses a mix of AFC and A.F.C. Should the club be named the same on all players pages for consistency (if so which way?) or is it just down to individual editors preference? A Well Fan (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say refer to the club as just 'Bournemouth', which in English media (to me at least) is the most common usage, as opposed to eg AFC Wimbledon, for which the full name is used. GiantSnowman 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's Bournemouth for me as well. And indeed, even the Wikipedia article uses A.F.C. Bournemouth so given we don't include F.C.s or A.F.C.s post-name, stands to reason we don't use it for pre-name versions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC Bournemouth in the infobox and at first use, for clarity, to distinguish from Bournemouth F.C. (we're not writing for football experts), just Bournemouth once context is established. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The club's name is AFC Bournemouth (the AFC doesn't stand for anything, a la AFC Wimbledon or FC Halifax Town). What we should be talking about is moving the title of the club article and other associated articles to replace A.F.C. with AFC. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Are we positive that the AFC doesn't stand for anything? For example, I just googled it and some places refer to it as Athletic Football Club such as here although this webpage states that technically their official name is actually Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club. Granted these aren't the most reputable sources. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC probably stands for Association Football Club. IIRC they put the acronym first (instead of last) to appear more "European" in line with clubs such as R.S.C. Anderlecht, FC Barcelona, K.S.K. Beveren, PSV Eindhoven, ACF Fiorentina, 1. FC Köln, S.S. Lazio, A.C. Milan, R.W.D. Molenbeek, AS Monaco FC, FC Bayern Munich, FC Nantes, 1. FC Nürnberg, AS Saint-Étienne and RC Strasbourg Alsace. The people at Bournemouth who decided this probably didn't realise that French, German, Italian and other languages have grammatical rules that are different from English, so the words go in a different order. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't stand for anything. They renamed it AFC Bournemouth in the 1970s to look cool and modern (and be listed at the top of the fixtures), and it was a pleasant coincidence that the initials harked back to part of the previous name, Athletic Football Club; but it isn't an initialism of those words in the way that the initials are in the foreign clubs listed above because the words aren't part of its name. As to their official name, the 2017/18 FA handbook lists the playing name as AFC Bournemouth and the entity name as AFC Bournemouth Limited. Companies House confirms the company name as AFC Bournemouth Limited. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AFC stands for "Association Football Club". REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What part of “it doesn’t stand for anything” did you not get? It’s a vanity, a conceit to get the club placed at the top of the table at the start of every season, but there is no official documentation anywhere that refers to the club as “Association Football Club Bournemouth” or “Athletic Football Club Bournemouth”. It doesn’t stand for anything. – PeeJay 13:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(ACF Fiorentina also doesn't stand for anything, they were founded in 1926 as "Associazione Calcio Fiorentina". In 2003 they went through bankruptcy and were re-founded as "ACF Fiorentina". ACF doesn't mean anything, it's just ACF; obviously the implication is that ACF = Associazione Calcio Fiorentina, but legally ACF is just ACF). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea of it being done for alphabetic reasons doesn't wash with anyone. All the books list them between Birmingham City and Brentford or, in a broader sense, between Bolton Wanderers and Bradford City. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that the club themselves thought it would get them to the start of the list, but all the journalists and writers chose to essentially ignore the AFC and leave them where they were. That's what this book reckons, anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought we all knew this! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If the order of the Club Directory section in their 2018/19 handbook is anything to go by, the Premier League fell for it... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hook, line and sinker. Appears it did wash with one book at least, the Premier League's own directory!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For not opening a new section, I have the same question for UD Logroñés and SD Logroñés, both different clubs after the inactivity of original CD Logroñés. Until now, they appear at all articles with UD or SD except in this year's Segunda División. Must be "Logroñés" changed to "UD Logroñés"?. Thank you! Asturkian (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They really both need to have the prefix for clarity, I know UD are the slightly bigger club and at a higher division this year but there's only one level between them and in theory it could just as easily be the other way around. There's no other way of naming them as far as I know. It looks a bit clumsy but we can't have two different teams showing the same name, and neither has the status to be obviously 'the' team of the city. Crowsus (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We all know what AFC stands for, you can either use it or not. Open to interpretation anyone? Govvy (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Premier League club season pages with Results by match day

Krazytea recently deleted the section of Premier League results by match day from the 2019-20 Manchester City F.C. season page citing: "As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Results_by_matchday/matchweek all results by matchday amounts to original research. If you feel they should be included, do feel free to open at new discussion at WikiProject Football.)"

I do accept some of the previous criticisms that the definition of match-day can be vary between users; and that postponements due to weather, cup matches and pandemics can also make interpretation of league position with games in hand less transparent.

However, I feel this metric is becoming more standardised. The Premier League and its broadcast partners have talked more about match days or match weeks in the last 1-2 years (presumably as a nod towards the overseas markets who are more familiar with this concept). The Premier League also refers to matchdays extensively on its' website for news, fantasy league and live match coverage. With respect to the point about original research, the Premier League publishes a graph (click on down arrow on left hand side) for each club showing results and the clubs league position by match day, exactly like the table on the club season pages.
In doing so their methodology appears to be:

• Club positions are stated as of the end of the current game day/week not as of the end of the matches.
• If matches are postponed then the clubs position is reported versus the number of games played not game day until games in hand are played out. As above the position is stated as per the end of the current game day/week (irrespective of how many games have been played).

If users make reference to the Premier League data and these basic rules I can't see why this information cannot be included. Agree? --Ratchet8865 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So are we removing that section now, because that results by match-day is still on the last five or so Tottenham season article pages. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No I am proposing that we keep these sections in historical and future pages. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. Whether you use a table (preferred by MOS) or a stacked set of {{footballbox collapsible}} templates, the colour coding should allow you to see exactly the same information as you're proposing to include. – PeeJay 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

True partly the matches allow one to see results in sequence and winning or losing streaks etc., but won't show how the results affected league position at the time (unless this can be added to the table or template as an additional field) --Ratchet8865 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you check out any Manchester United season article dating back about 25-30 years, you'll see a "League position" column to give the position the club was in at the end of the day of each match. – PeeJay 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As per previous discussions some two years ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Results_by_matchday/matchweek we agreed to remove these sections. Once we had statto that compiled all of this information and it was easily sourced. Now the information must be pulled out of the EPL's main site through OR, these tables are also easily vandalized without notice. While matchdays & matchweeks are discussed commonly in the media, I am not sure what this particular table actually adds to a page and they should be removed. Krazytea(talk) 16:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia v Myanmar (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)

Is this match notable? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By the looks of it - no. GiantSnowman 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also;

Netherlands v Russia (UEFA Euro 2008)

Australia v Netherlands (2014 FIFA World Cup)

Poland v Germany (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying)

If we had an article for every match that had a bit of a shock result, we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

All created by the same user, who must be on a spree creating articles on "international matches with surprising results"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll send them to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - could be worth also sending the creator a personalised note asking them to cease... GiantSnowman 10:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria)

What's the different by the two different position by rounds? And I thought we were getting rid of them! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? One is for the main table prior to it being split and the other is for the so-called "Championship round". – PeeJay 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Position by round and results by round! :/ Surely it's just the same information, and wasn't there a consensus to get rid of these tables? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Position by round is where each team stood in the table after each "round". Results by round is the result of each team's game in that "round". Totally different information....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't seem to recall a consensus not to use PoR tables after the most recent discussion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That said, I do seem to remember quite a few people saying that Results by round tables were overkill. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I forgot about this, yep, it's over-kill isn't it. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable players - which flags?

When making a list of notable players for, let’s say, SG Dynamo Dresden or FC Lokomotiv Moscow, you will have players who were citizens of East Germany and Sovjet Union while they where playing for the clubs, but who became citizens of Germany and Russia later in their lives. One reason for their notability might be that they played for the national teams of East Germany and the Soviet Union, but they might as well also have played for the national teams of Germany and Russia later in their lives. Which flags would you use for such players? East Germany and Soviet? Or Germany and Russia? Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk)

@EriFr: I would use both flags if they represented both national teams. However, on the topic of "Notable players" sections: these generally are not included as there is no rigid criteria to determine whether or not a player is "notable" or "famous". The only objective criteria I can think of is a "Hall of Fame" made by the club itself (on their official website, or something like that). Otherwise, it's WP:OR. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme that such lists should be included if there has been some kind of official list published by the club or a in a book/newspaper. As for flags themselves, please use the historical ones, not the current ones. GiantSnowman 21:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What if Dariusz Wosz was to appear on an equivalent list for Halle? Would you use the GDR flag or the Germany flag there? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For me, since Wosz has played for both the East Germany and Germany national teams, I would display both flags. If, for example, they were born in East Germany, but only played for Germany, I would only display the Germany flag. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm the other way: since Wosz didn't play for Germany until after he left Halle, I would only use the East German flag for him in a list of notable Halle players. – PeeJay 15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't notice that. Yes of course, I agree with you: we shouldn't be anachronistic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:United States v Colombia (1994 FIFA World Cup)

Should this be considered an instance of WP:1E (though it applies to the biographies) as per this? or it should have a standalone article? I am pinging the concerned user @PeeJay:. Hitro talk 07:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that match is particularly notable in itself, what’s notable is what happened to Andres Escobar because of it. – PeeJay 08:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better to write an article titled Murder of Andres Escobar with the match mentioned in it since the murder is the main focus I would say. Similar to how we separated 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots from 2000 UEFA Cup Final. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there really enough to say about his murder to justify a separate article from his existing article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not? I think the matter is more than just the death of Andrés Escobar. The matter is the match also has a cultural impact on American soccer. At the time when the U.S. hosted the competition, the United States' soccer was in poor shape. Let's give aside from the death of Escobar, what about the USMNT? Wasn't it significant for the USMNT as well? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 19:31, 2 Septmber 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu: respectfully, you have a track record of creating articles about non-notable matches. Your enthusiasm would be best served in other places. GiantSnowman 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I don't hide my passion anyway. But I have selected some matches carefully, as long as it has some cultural significant here. "Cultural significance", please mark my word. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Any cultural significance this match has is intrinsically tied to Andres Escobar and his murder. Any significance it had in the progress of soccer in the United States can be covered sufficiently in the article about the USMNT and/or the United States at the FIFA World Cup article. There was nothing about the United States' actual performance that made this game significant, just the result and the fact that Escobar was murdered because of it. – PeeJay 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Murder of Andres Escobar would be a better topic choice than the article on the match. The match is the background and catalyst. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's a lot more to say about the specifics of his murder, isn't the content at Andrés Escobar#Own goal incident and subsequent murder sufficient? – PeeJay 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are the conservative one here. The United States won the game when its soccer was in poor shape at the time. The death of Escobar is well-known. But what about USMNT? Let's get some life, you are an anti-USMNT or what? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, upsets happen all the time in soccer, especially when the host nation is involved. The match itself was nothing to write home about, and it didn’t turn out to be particularly significant. The US went on to lose their R16 match, and then crashed out of the next World Cup in the group stage. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Just accept the consensus here that those matches are not notable and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kante4 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

EFL Cup debuts

Today is the first full day of the 2020-21 English season, meaning many players will be making debuts and having articles created. My list of draft articles can be found at User:GiantSnowman#To do - if a player makes their debut please check there first (and of course feel free to move any draft into mainspace) before creating your own article, to save any confusion etc. GiantSnowman 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's annoying. I've got a few drafts as well and some of them overlap with yours. I think merging might be the best solution. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've moved my drafts on McGill, Ashford, and Frost into mainspace as they are starting today. Do you want me to merge yours with those? GiantSnowman 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great, thanks. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That often happens, I've got a couple of articles in User:Govvy/Sandbox, but I don't think I've been keeping up to-date so well. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: I have done - can I leave you to update the articles please, and add any useful info/sources from 'my' version to the live version (which is based on 'yours'?) I always search in 'draft' and 'user' spaces before I create a draft (my drafts of McGill and Frost are earlier than yours, and you were quicker on Ashford by such a small amount that it likely wasn't even created when I searched!), so that could be useful to avoid us duplicating work in future! GiantSnowman 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally check as well, but we seem to have been working at the same time when these drafts were created. Once I fathom out how iFollow works and watch the Crawley Vs Millwall game, I shall sort these out. Thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was just about to start drafting Viktor Johansson. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gricehead: feel free to edit my draft - I'm not massively precious about that! GiantSnowman 21:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fulham LFC

Hi, just wondered if anybody could add a player to the list of players under Fulham LFC. JBowry (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@JBowry: what do you want to change, and what is the source supporting it? GiantSnowman 20:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Portland Timbers–Vancouver Whitecaps rivalry

An editor has created Portland Timbers–Vancouver Whitecaps rivalry, which is a bit of sourced content and a bit WP:SYNTH. I was surprised to see that the editor started to add the results of every match between a team with the name of Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps to the article. Aside from the problems with accessibility, is this usual? Suggestions on the article's talk page would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't see any big problems. Clearly there was a rivalry in previous eras and this has been re-ignited in the MLS period. What do you feel is synth, suggest problem text be tagged for specific analysis and hopefully refs that support it, or else removal. Due to the number of matches, it would probably be better to use a table rather than template for the results, it's currently incomplete with the MLS results mostly missing, and there's certainly no need to link the teams every time, but these are minor issues, and it's pretty common to list the result history in such articles. Crowsus (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to move the article to Cascadia Cup and include Seattle Sounders in there? GiantSnowman 06:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two problems that this project can address. The first, SYNTH, is that entire paragraphs that are unsourced. The only assumption is that these have been fabricated out of the match results, possibly the season articles for Portland, or possibly a user-generated forum or site.

The second is that the results are more than half the article. Before the results started taking over, it was about 11,538 bytes. After the recent edits it was 46,080 bytes and after I removed all of the unused parameters it was 42,458 bytes. Vertically, the results are 2.5 the size of the prose. When the editor includes the recent (MLS) results, it will eclipse the prose. Is including results in an article like this usual? I have not seen in other derby articles, but I have only seen a few outside of the North American context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The unsourced paragraphs - remove with glee. The results - same. That level of detail is not normal, see e.g. Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry which is a GA. GiantSnowman 07:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The results should be removed for no other reason than the garish colour scheme. I dread to think how some of our visually-impaired readers and editors will cope with seeing that monstrosity. – PeeJay 10:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hang on tho, Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry is also a GA and it does list the results. I think initially it would be better to tag the unsourced statements unless extremely controversial, and to convert (or have the creator convert) the results to a table format with a lot less colour and better accessibility and page load aspects. Crowsus (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Another reason GA means nothing. The infoboxes of each violates WP:SMALLTEXT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Premier league table

So I am a little confused, but is the table simply in the 2020–21 Premier League article? How does it work if I want to use it in another article? Govvy (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Use the code {{:2020–21 Premier League}}

If you want to use it for a particular team, use {{:2020–21 Premier League|showteam=XXX}} where "XXX" is the team's three letter ID in the table code. Number 57 13:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we recently have a discussion about this and the deletion of the templates we used previously? Didn't we get a resolution for this to use templates again rather than subst from the articlespace? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 22#Template:2020–21 Premier League table - I suggest an RfC is the way to get a consensus out of this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the template got deleted, and then I thought the table wouldn't be on the Spurs season page, but it was there. So, was a little confused at first. Still seems strange to me, I am use to the template style. I found it easier to watch. Going to be a lot harder to see disruptive activity this way unfortunately for me. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if there is an RfC (I'm not entirely convinced one is needed given the repeated 'delete' outcomes at TfD), rather than being a straight yes/no for templates, a third option (templates for current seasons only) is offered. Many of the editors opposing the article-based tables seem to not be happy about editing/watching an article-based table during the season. However, once a season is over, no further edits should be required to tables and transclusion should no longer be an issue. Number 57 14:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, once a season is over, the template can be locked to stop it being abused, and it should be all correct and not need editing anyway. All the old templates should be locked to template editors only. Govvy (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying – I was suggesting that a middle ground option would be to have a template during a live season and then hardcode it onto articles once the season is over and delete the template. Number 57 16:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know why I wrote French there, anyway, seems to be a more complex way the way you want to do it. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Govvy - seems needlessly complicated to have the table in the article at all, but the WORST time would be after the league has finished, when we could put some page protection on a template - rather than in hundreds of articles that can easily be not patrolled. What's the want to remove all the templates? This is exactly what they are for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if what I wrote above is unclear. I am not suggesting the tables be coded into hundreds of articles. The table could be in one article (the one on the season in question) and transcluded from there, as happens now. Number 57 19:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Club Brugge templates

The template Template:Club Brugge KV and other relevant templates (all in Category:Club Brugge KV templates) appear to violate MOS:ACCESS, as black text on a dark blue background is very difficult to read. Would it be better to change the text colour to white in these templates? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Not the best ACCESS expert but my exes do hurt when looking at it. Kante4 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there should be light text on dark background or vice versa. I suggest blue background, white text, black border. GiantSnowman 10:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated them all as per GiantSnowman's suggested colour scheme. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Much better! GiantSnowman 10:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Real Betis issue resurfaces.

Hi, this is probably the third time of me asking this over the years but the Real Betis name problem seems to have risen again at 2020–21 La Liga. I am aware of the term Betis being used in player infoboxes and the majority of referencing body text, but for formal introductions and such uses like the ones in La Liga and UEFA competition (if applicable) season articles it is called Real Betis. This is the exact same setting as Celta and Celta Vigo, but there is no problem there. The term "Real Betis" has been used for the past years, but instead of keeping/changing it purely out of personal opinion, could we reach a consensus on how the team should be called in articles like these? Thank You. TheSoccerBoy^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would have thought 'Betis' would only be used in prose after the full name had already been used. I'd expect to see the club listed as 'Real Betis' in infoboxes and tables. Number 57 21:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with N57. GiantSnowman 21:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with N57. Govvy (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Got to agree aswell. Kante4 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Same, I've never understood why we're including 'Real' for some teams (e.g. Real Madrid) and excluding it from others (e.g. Real Betis). Mattythewhite (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine that Spanish people only use the "Real" when they need to differentiate e.g. Real Madrid from Atletico. As there's no other Betis club they don't need to do it, in the same way that English people would usually say Manchester United and Manchester City but just Leeds or Stoke..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above, although the situation is slightly more complicated than equating it to Celta as their official name includes the city (and the longest version includes 'Real', like a few others) while Betis's name doesn't as they don't want to be associated with Sevilla CF. Can't think of an equivalent in the Anglosphere, closest would be if it was officially Everton United or something (but there would still be no equivalent for the Real prefixed clubs, which include Deportivo, Espanyol, Sporting Gijon, Recreativo Huelva and Racing Santander where its an 'extra', and the simpler city ones like Valladolid, Oviedo, Murcia, Mallorca and Zaragoza which generally drop the prefix - Real Madrid is obviously in this category too but due to the prominence of Atlético and the strength of their 'brand', are referred to by the two word version more often. Real Sociedad and Real Union are different again, they never really drop the Real). Crowsus (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am curious, but isn't Real Betis more inline for WP:COMMONNAME?? Govvy (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker or resident, but from my exposure to Spanish media, Betis is the common name, with the Real only used as often as RCD Espanyol or RCD Mallorca, but (my understanding is that) acronym prefixes are ignored for the rule while single words are generally included...? I checked a few Milan players to see how that was used, but it's name and that of Internazionale/Inter Milan are displayed inconsistently, even among the most prominent players, and even where they played for both clubs (see Andrea Pirlo, Roberto Baggio, Giuseppe Meazza, Christian Vieri, etc Crowsus (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

We should be using the common name in English, not in the native language. In Italy, only "Milan" (for A.C. Milan) and "Inter" (for F.C. Internazionale Milano) are used, not "Inter Milan" nor "Internazionale". If "Betis" is more common in English, we should use that. If "Real Betis" is more common, we should use that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

BBC use the title Real Betis [5] :/ Govvy (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Part of the time use Real Betis, like here: [6], [7], [8], and part of the time Betis, like here: [9], [10], [11] --SuperJew (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

SuperJew, I am not sure what you are trying to point out but each BBC source you provided has Real Betis! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That's weird... I actually didn't look at the pages themselves, but at the titles as shown on the link you provided Govvy. --SuperJew (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

heh, SuperJew, as you can see as Number57 said above, BBC also use Betis in prose, but when they use it on its own (singular form) they add Real. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to put my pov as Spanish. The most common criteria uses to add only "Real" to Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and Real Unión. In addition, BDFutbol website uses also that but for avoiding confussions with some teams (e.g. Burgos and Real Burgos). I always said I'm for avoiding using "Real" except for those three teams and for distinguish others. Asturkian (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A couple of unrelated queries.

Apologies if this is in the wrong section, I find wikipedia's behind the scenes/discussions/projects sections to be extremely non-user friendly but that's just me and another discussion entirely. I am experienced at editing articles but have a couple of questions:

• I was recently criticised for removing an AfD notice before the article's deletion talk page had been closed. The original AfD notice was put on the article as the player did not meet notability criteria. Several days later, the player clearly met the criteria in an indisputable way - started an EFL Trophy match between two fully professional EFL teams. Common sense, to me, suggested as this was indisputable and meant the player was notable, that removing the AfD notice and adding the AfD discussion result to the talk page was just a routine, matter of course. Yet another user reversed these actions because the talk page hadn't been closed. Even if this is policy, surely common sense prevails? Is there a section of this project where I can discuss the possibility of changing this rule? Alternatively, can any member of the project close the deletion discussion talk pages?

• Secondly, I primarily focus on one team, the team I support. I am very clued up on the history of the club, previous and current goings on etc and have made thousands of edits relating to this particular club and their players. The actual team page article needs a huge revamp (in my opinion), is full of irrelevant details, unsourced details and generally includes a lot of information that more established teams do not include in their articles (including previous featured and 'good' articles). Many of the sections on the club's article were even created by myself many years ago when I was a less experienced editor. I have suggested the changes I want to make on the article's talk page around a week ago but haven't had any replies. Is there a more appropriate place to discuss it with people familiar with the club? Can I make large-scale edits to this article without discussion due to my knowledge of the club and due to being an established editor of the article and associated pages?

Apologies for the lengthy questions! FilthyDon (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

On the first point, you should never remove an AfD notice while the AfD is ongoing. It can only be removed when the AfD is closed. Generally AfDs should only be closed early by non-admins if there is a very clear consensus (WP:SNOW). Even if a player becomes notable during an AfD, non-admins should only really close it if a majority of participants have changed their !vote.

On the second point, WP:BEBOLD and make the edits. There was nothing stopping you doing this in the first place, although it can be good practice to discuss radical changes on talk first. However, you should not base the edits on your personal knowledge – the information should be sourced to reliable sources. Number 57 20:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick reply. On the first point this was a very clear example of a player becoming notable. I just thought it was a little hasty from whoever reversed it (presumably an admin). On the second point, yes any edits I make are never based on my personal knowledge nor unsourced, I only mentioned it to say that in the grand scheme of the 'history' of the club I have a good idea of what is relevant or significant enough to include. Some sections of this club's article are almost entirely unsourced or are overly elaborate (paragraphs on a minor rivalry, when larger established clubs have smaller sections but fully sourced). FilthyDon (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:CLOSEAFD covers all articles, not just football ones. It says thay an AfD can only be closed by the nominator (if they are withdrawing it), and admin or someone uninvolved with the article / AfD and you are none of these. Also, passing NFOOTY does not guarantee an article will be kept, so the discussion needs to be finished once it has started. Spike 'em (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Though User:FilthyDon, if you were to ignore all rules and remove the AFD notice, the convention would be to first close the AFD yourself, and then remove the notice. I'm surprised that User:BlameRuiner hasn't withdrawn his nomination - perhaps they are unaware that they were in the starting line-up today. Generally, a non-admin closing an AFD early is a very poor idea; but this particular case where situation has very much changed, and it's now snowing, is probably the exception. Safest thing to do though is apply WP:NORUSH, unless something bizarrely spectacular happened in the game, and the whole world will be quickly rushing to Warren O’Hora. Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't withdraw a nomination because I don't monitor the lineups 24/7. And since there are already many concerned editors participating in the discussion, I was sure the 'keep' votes will prevail if something like this happens. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Portuguese problem - Part 2

Having just read the message this person (please see here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP) left :@MYS77: and this particular WP forum (in the meantime deleted, archive here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&diff=next&oldid=976901640#A_Portuguese_problem), my two cents...

This person may be onto something (maybe the sole thing) mentioning my grammar shortcomings, after all i'm not a native speaker of English. And i sincerely apologise for having written in MYS77's page in Portuguese (or any language other than English for that matter), against the rules i know. But when this person says that when i wrote "nothing hurt whatsoever" in my summaries i had done exactly the opposite to the given article shows how much they are here to contribute and not antagonise others (and this coming from one - me! - with quite an unacceptable amount of uncalled-for edit summaries); they have been blocked how many times now? 50? 100? I rest my case, but i apologise to them and WP in general for the language used in that message written in my language, about on par with the times this person called me a vandal and a disruptive editor.

WP:FOOTY technicalities now: i see that many many intros i wrote back in the day containing "X is a former Y footballer who played as a Z, and the current manager of Q" have been composed (the BKFIP also called that horrible editing, i now ask you sincerely is that not 100% correct English?). I found/thought that "X is a Y football manager and a former player who played as a Z. He is the manager of Q" more confusing than my preferred one (i.e. why needlessly write "manager" twice), but i see that most people prefer the latter form over the former, so i must not continue to go against the grain there. In fact, i'm completely retired now because of a mixture of situations: the bad blood between editors (and in no way will i say i was never the guilty party in that department, no siree!) and the fact that i quite possible have failed to adhere to WP:MOS more times than acceptable; so, the BFKIP and all the editors who felt i was doing more bad than good to the project won't have to worry about me anymore, won't touch another article here regardless of in how much need of a cleanup it is.

As much as i loved to help out, i feel that WP were 14 years of my life wasted that i'll never get back (and not even that big of a football fan, i like the sport that's all, don't support a single team not even the national one). Sorry to all the editors i (may have) inconvenience(d) along the way, take care and continue the great work! --Quite A Character (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Trying to put the status, position and current club in a single sentence while also using past tense for the playing career and present tense for the Managerial career is something we each try to do but it's complicated to say the least, native speaker or not. I'm not an English expert, but it may not even technically be possible to put all that in one flow of information and be grammatically correct. The way it was phrased above wasn't quite right but as far as I remember that was discussed a year or two ago, and any articles that still use that format just haven't been changed yet, due to low viewing numbers or the fact that it's easy to miss when scanning the lead for info about the current club etc. Up to you if you want to continue as it seems to be more annoying than enjoyable for you nowadays but I certainly value your contributions in adding to the database and maintaining it. Crowsus (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Only noticed it now: thanks a million for your kind words in the original version of this thread :@GiantSnowman:. Not that i think the person who complained about me will be convinced, but i was moved the same. And i know i did not comply to MOS many many times, not with a bad intention but i did not! --Quite A Character (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to justify your behaviour to that troll! GiantSnowman 10:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani seasons

Don't they fail WP:NSEASONS; I've noticed Azerbaijani leagues aren't listed in WP:FPL? Despite this, there seem to be season articles for every club playing in their top division dating back several seasons; see 2011–12 Sumgayit FK season and more recently 2020–21 Sabail FK season. Interested to hear thoughts from others. Spiderone 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that they are notable. It is the top tier in that country and the winner qualifies for the Champions League. In 2017 Qarabağ made it as far as the group stage, so I think that the seasons are notable and would suggest updating WP:FPL. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

They definitely fail NSEASONS, but there may be a case for them passing GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

NSEASONS refers to "top" professional leagues, not "fully" professional leagues. Some might argue that the Azerbaijan top flight was considerably more "top" than the "fully" pro USL League One, Albanian First Division or Myanmar National League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While the wording is as you state, clear consensus from AfDs over the years is that for football purposes, it is interpreted as fully-professional leagues. Number 57 12:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Silly, isn't it? While we're at it, given that people are currently quite keen on trimming this season-article bloat, what do you think the chances would be of testing the second para of NSEASONS, the one that says (bolding original)

Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

Plenty of potential targets there... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's silly at all. It's good to have a clear cut-off, and fully-professional leagues seems like a fair place to have that cut-off.

Regarding the testing of the second part, I don't think that would work for AfD – adding prose is something that can be done relatively easily to improve an article, whereas the league status is something that cannot be changed via editing the article. Number 57 13:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani league IS fully pro. It is run by Azerbaijan Professional Football League (Peşəkar Futbol Liqası) and clubs pay 2,1 million Eur on avarage for players wages. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Source? Spiderone 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Google it. :) Here is one for instance: https://www.azernews.az/sports/160770.html Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Dejan Kulusevski nationality in lede

@EriFr keeps adding "Swedish" to the opening sentence in the lede, despite the fact that player has represented (North) Macedonia internationally in 2015 at youth level. I thought we agreed to remove nationalities when the player has represented multiple NTs (there is even an explanation regarding his nationality situation in the first paragraph of the lede). Obviously, Kulusevski is more notably Swedish than Macedonian, but still, I think there should be consistency. Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 I am sorry, I added two sources for the nationality (UEFA and BBC), but I had no idea of that principe. So, this means that a player like Ferenc Puskás should not be described "a Hungarian footballer and manager", because he played for Spain and Hungary and held dual citizenship? Kindest. /EriFr (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@EriFr: No problem, I could have been clearer myself. The rules for international eligibility changed in 2004, meaning that it used to be much easier to play for a national team without having the country's citizenship (see List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams#Eligibility and FIFA eligibility rules). So, obviously, Puskás should be describes as Hungarian, but someone like Thiago Motta, who played for both Brazil and Italy post-2004, shouldn't have "Brazilian former professional..." or "Italian former professional..." Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! /EriFr (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In this situation I see no issue describing him as "Swedish" in the lede. GiantSnowman 18:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also have no problem with that, as long as we establish a standard. For example: if a player has played for only one senior national team, then we only display that nationality in the lede (Kulusevski's situation). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't state nationality where a player is born and raised in one country (France) but plays senior football for another country (Algeria) - example in question is Riyad Mahrez. However, Kulusevski was born in Sweden, raised in Sweden, and plays for Sweden. Playing for Macedonia at under-17 level is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 19:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, we can finally remove any mentions of Canada from the lede to Owen Hargreaves! Canada will sleep well tonight! Nfitz (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

He was born in Canada and represented England; he falls in the same category of Mahrez no? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Born there, because his parents were there at the time, so technically a citizen. But parents both from UK, and all his siblings are born in the UK. Moved back to Europe as a kid. Never played in Canadian national system. So more like Mahrez, surely. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So, similar to Thiago Alcântara? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

With Hargreaves, the article says he grew up in Canada, not Europe? Indeed, the lede claims "he is the only player to have played for England without having previously lived in the United Kingdom", as he seemingly lived in Canada until moving to Germany at 16? GiantSnowman 21:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Precisely - he left as a kid. Has he ever returned? As a national embarrassment to Canada, it seems odd to overly stress his brief tenancy. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cliff Jones (Welsh footballer)

Is there anyway to find Cliff Jones stats for King's Lynn F.C. even know the club no longer exists? Govvy (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: This results and scorers page shows his goals (and a little comment at the bottom), but they only do full apps/goals as far back as the 2000/01 season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't the article be renamed Cliff Jones (footballer, born 1935)? The other Cliff Jones who used to play football is Cliff Jones (English footballer), who's DoB is unknown (so I guess we should keep his as it is). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Struway2: By any chance, was Jones the only Jones in the team?? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Can't be sure, but on e.g. the 2016/17 results page, they do give initials to scorers where there are multiple players of the same surname. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I emailed thelinnets website and got a swift reply, the guy said he see what he can find out and publish it on there. So hopefully that will help. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How we talk about loans in infoboxes

I noticed that in Christian Pulisic, there's always an editor who "corrects" the infobox to show all the Dortmund stats in one line, instead of showing the half-season on loan from Chelsea, which is the correct way to show it. But is it really correct?

The transfer+loan was a single transaction — it wasn't like Pulisic left, and then decided he wanted to come back to Dortmund. It was mostly a way for Chelsea to get around the looming transfer ban. In effect, it wasn't any different from Naby Keïta, who signed with Liverpool in 2017 but didn't join until 2018.

Similarly, is separating the one season on loan really the best way to show Kylian Mbappé's career progression when he was never going to go back to Monaco (Jermain Defoe has two such loan deals — when he was loaned back from Toronto to Tottenham, and then when he left Bournemouth on loan to Rangers before making the move permanent). It seems like treating these cases as loans is too pedantic and not helpful to readers who just need information at a glance, especially when we can discuss the transaction mechanics in the body. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Basically, you want to implement the Italian Wikipedia format (see Kylian Mbappé and Christian Pulisic); I wouldn't be against that, but it would take a lot of work to retroactively "fix" thousands of articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It gets really messy with last season where a player was bought by a club at the end of a loan but before the end of the season. Using Hélder Costa as an example, it seems silly to split his 2019-20 season stats with 40 of his appearances being shown as on loan and his final 3 as a permanent Leeds player. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: I'm not sure I understand? Unless I'm misunderstanding, Costa joined Leeds in July 2019 with an agreement to buy, and through some contract mechanism, that deal became formally permanent in the middle of the season. Mbappé's deal worked the same way, iirc; his sale became official once PSG was mathematically safe from relegation, or something like that. Since there was an agreement to buy, you'd treat his 2019-20 season as part of his Leeds career. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: Leeds' deal for costa was effectively a way to dodge financial fair play, meaning he was on loan for the entire season and signed permanently at the end. Since the championship season went beyond the end of the normal season, his loan expred during the season and the permanent transfer took place before the end of the season. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchis: Oh I see what you mean now. I forgot that the financial year ended while the season was in progress. In this case, it seems to make especially more sense to treat July 2019 as the start of his Leeds career. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A similar case is with Dejan Kulusevski: he played half of the past season on loan from Atalanta, and the other half on loan from Juventus. His infobox "splits" his stats. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You sometimes, particularly in North America, get loaned players, who get loaned back temporarily, particularly during international days, when a club may be short of players. That could get really ugly if it happens 2 or 3 times in a season. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

With regards to those two above players, Hélder Costa and Dejan Kulusevski, I'm fine with the way it is split in the Infobox, but I feel the career stats section is messy as is, and would be better served combining them instead of having two separate lines for the first season. Maybe write (loan/perm) or something, if you want to highlight that he played both. A similar example is in the 2018/19 season, Ager Aketxe played on loan at Cadiz for the first half of the season, and was acquired permanently beginning in January. I have those two periods separated in the Infobox as Cadiz (loan) 15(1) and Cadiz 18(3), but in the career stats I just put 33(4) since it was the same season. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate spells with the same club should not be totalled together in the career stats box, it causes confusion. GiantSnowman 21:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If a player spent half a season on loan, the infobox shows that. If they spent one game on loan, the infobox shows that (see e.g. Nahki Wells). We should not merge separate spells at the same club, even if one directly followed the other, and whether that be in the infobox or the career stats table. GiantSnowman 21:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

While personally I don't see an issue with combining same season stats in the Career Stats section, I will defer to whatever the majority decides/convention. However, would doing something like this User:RedPatchBoy/sandbox perhaps be a better method for Helder Costa? I rowspaned the season, so it shows the loan and permanent stats separate, but only shows the season once. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: That's a good solution. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That solution from RPB is what we already have at Tim Howard, and IMO is the way we should be going about it for every single one of the above examples. Split in the infobox, with the rowspanned season in the stats box. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent call-ups section

We should uniform the section; specifically, the notes regarding the explanation as to why the player wasn't called up (injury, retired, etc.)

1. Should the note go next to the player's last game? (Italy, for example)
2. Or next to the player's name? (Belgium)

Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I would go for option 2. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the note imo. Injury and retired is the player's status so should go next to the player's name. Called for the preliminary squad and not making the final squad is a tournament status and should go next to the player's last game. --SuperJew (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we keep the unused notes? For e.g., if there are no retired players, should we keep the "RET" footnote? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Does the footnote show if it is not used? Or does it get automatically hidden if not being used? If the latter, I say just leave it, since it makes it easier for future edits and doesn't really impact anything. If it does show, even when not being used, then I guess it would be confusing and probably should be removed. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes the footnotes always show. I don't think there is a way to hide them when unused. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Play-off final article titles

Hello all. I'm working on a number of English Football League Play-off Finals and a couple of different reviewers have questioned the capitalisation being used across all such articles. I thought I'd come here to seek a consensus on the preferred approach. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no dog in the fight, just wish to establish a written consensus. So, which of the following does the community think is the "correct" way of capitalising these finals:

1. 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final
2. 1988 Football League Second Division Play-off Final
3. 1988 Football League Second Division play-off final
4. 1988 Football League Second Division Play-Off Final
5. Something else

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If the decision is that "final" should have a lower-case f then presumably that would also impact all our articles on FA Cup finals, EFL Cup finals, etc, all of which current use a capital F as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that 'Final' should be capitalised. That reflects official usage, e.g. FA Cup Final. From my quick search, it seems to be 'Play-Off Final' in official sources - see e.g. Wembley and EFL. GiantSnowman 09:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't even offered that as an option! Of course we could capitalise the Off too... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHENCAPS says not to capitalise after a hyphen unless the word after the hyphen is a proper name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Does that MOS apply to a title or name? I think we need to follow WP:COMMONNAME spelling and get it spelt as it is in RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The spelling wouldn't change, it's just the capitalisation. Personally, I'd be inclined to go along with the MOS, not least among the reasons being that it just looks weird with a capital O. – PeeJay 11:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TITLE#Hyphenation says to go with COMMONNAME, but if neither spelling is clearly dominant in sources, default to lowercase after a hyphen, per the general rule. Spike 'em (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like a general agreement to capitalise the P of play- but not the O of -off. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I prefer 'Play-Off Final', but if it's against MOS then 'Play-off Final' is fine. GiantSnowman 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Odd

After these two edits which appeared vandalistic, [12] [13] I had a look at User talk:Gasforth-2021 and am not sure what is up. Could knowledgeable editors here have a look at 2020 Faroe Islands Cup and other contribs for User:Gasforth-2021? There seem to be a lot of problems on their talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Looked at those articles and yeah his user page isn't really a place to hold your stuff which is what I am seeing here and especially when you have 83% of your edits be about your userpage. In terms of the 2020 Faroe Islands Cup page. That seems fine as the article. To put into my userpage percentage is a measy 4%. HawkAussie (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point - doesn't seem like this is being done in bad faith. If this was the user's sandbox, would there be an issue? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The two diffs I gave above, on a template very few editors would logically come across, appear to be vandalism. (Deleting content in one case, replacing content with the word Zambia in another.) When I looked at the deleted articles at the user’s talk, I wondered if the Faroe Islands Cup was even a real or notable thing, which is where you all come in. I am not sure what HawkAussie references about the user page; I was referencing the amount of work that has been deleted after reviewing their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I have examined the user page, I see what may have happened. Gasforth copied the FCDW Template to their talkpage, intending to use it as a sample setup, and then may not have realized they were editing the template rather than their userpage. Possibly an innocent newbie mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Canadian PL - How to record in Infobox and stats tables

So, with the Covid pandemic impacting the league's season, in the 2020 Canadian Premier League season they are playing out a modified shortened season, in a bit of a tournament format. I posed this question on the Talk:2020 Canadian Premier League season page, but posting here for more opinions. So the season is divided as such, in the First Stage, every team plays each other once (8 teams, so 7 games). This is easy in my opinion and these matches should be counted as League Matches. Where it gets tricky, is that the top 4 teams advance to the Second Stage, where they again play each other once. Should these second stage matches be considered "League Games" and get included in the infobox, or "Playoff Games" and thus not included. The top two teams in the Second Stage then advance to the Championship final. Currently, each team has one game remaining in the First Stage. I haven't seen this discussed anywhere previously, so I just wanted to see if there was an agreed upon process as to how to record this. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How are stats sites etc. going to be recording them? GiantSnowman 19:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, last year (a normal season), the League website and other sites like Soccerway grouped the Regular Season Matches and Playoff Matches (a two-leg league final between the top two teams) into combined stats, but here on wikipedia it was assumed that those Finals matches were "playoff matches" and not included in the infobox and were put into the playoff section. So, I feel like those sites will lump them in together as well. This situation reminds me of the MLS is Back Tournament earlier this year, where Group Stage matches were considered League Matches and included in Infobox, which Knockout matches were not. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This sounds rather like the way the Scottish Premier League has operated since the start of the 2000–01 season. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the "round of four" is a playoff and should be treated that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not quite the same as Scotland though. In Scotland they just divide the league into two halves and they play against their own halves and each team in the league winds up with the same number of games played. Here, half the teams are eliminated. The bottom half doesn't play their own set of games - they get zero. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Asking users who I've seen are great editors at updating CPL player articles, User:QQ2NFLD and User:Cristane if they have any thoughts about this? RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The league has never mentioned the word "playoffs" when referring to this Second Stage; also, it's not a knockout stage either, they all play each other once. My suggestion is to count the stats. Also, this way, more players will be kept in sync with Soccerway, since only the one final matchup will not be counted. Cristane (talk)

I'm okay with User:Cristane's suggestion. User:Blaixx, I know you wrote on the [[2020 CPL Talk page that you supported the second and final stage being considered playoffs. Are you okay with the second stage being regular season and only the Final stage being playoffs? RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC) This was Blaixx's message on the Talk page, adding it here so all the conversation is in one place.

"Thats a great question. It's especially complicated because the CPL does not differentiate stats into regular season and playoff, it lumps them all together. My thought is that stats from the second stage would be considered playoff games and grouped with the Finals games. BLAIXX 5:38 pm, 4 September 2020, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)"

Yep, I'm good with that for now. BLAIXX 21:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Instantly nominating articles for deletion

Hey folks. I'd like to talk about the practice by some editors of pretty much instantly tagging for deletion new articles about footballers who marginally fail notability guidelines; at the minute I'm looking at Tariq Uwakwe, but before that it was Warren O'Hora, and before that it was Remy Howarth, and there were probably others before that. I say marginally, because, for Uwakwe, he played in the cup last night for Accrington against Leeds U21s, which according to a strict reading of the guidleines is not good enough; if he'd played against one of the other teams in the group it would confer notability. O'Hora was in the same position, until he played at the weekend. I created Ramirez Howarth, it was instantly tagged for deletion, and then 24h later he played for one minute - which made him notable.

Deleting articles like this soon after they're made just seems like a waste of time, because these players are highly likely to meet the notability requirements fairly soon, and that just means that the article will then have to be recreated. Surely a more sensible thing to do would be to leave them for a while, and then delete them if after (say) 6 months if this hasn't happened. Even nominating them for deletion is a waste of time, because people spend time and effort defending them - see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warren_O'Hora - which soon becomes unneccesary anyway.

User:GiantSnowman has a whole bunch of these articles in his userspace, so clearly he thinks that these people are likely to become notable at some point. By keeping them there they don't show up in searches (for example: Kyle Jameson), so experienced editors spend time and effort creating these articles, only (often) for him to then nominate them for deletion. I guess people do this as a management tool - it's much easier to do this when they're created than 6 months later, but it comes across as quite unfriendly. If they are then recreated from his drafts, to me the impression that creates is one of gatekeeping. I'm not saying that's what is intended, but that's how it appears.

I know that according to the rules, these people fail WP:NFOOTY. But I also think we could WP:IGNORE and use WP:COMMONSENSE. Paging User:Nfitz, User:FilthyDon, User:BlameRuiner, User:Spiderone who were all involved at Warren O'Hora. Not sure if they watch this page. Chris (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The real waste of time is editors starting articles before the subjects meet the notability guidelines. If they can stop doing that (and wait until players make their debuts), they wouldn't have to be nominated for deletion. Yes, it happens sometimes that players do make their debuts during an AfD, but you can never be certain they will. Number 57 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing you also need to remember is that playing that one game doesn't confer notability, it just means that nfooty has been met and nfooty is just a rule of thumb for when GNG is likely met. It specifically mentions that meeting it does not guarantee notability or an article. So if they play the game in the middle of an AfD if they still have no sources on them that meet GNG they still need to be deleted. Playing their first match doesn't necessarily mean there are suddenly sources created over night. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

hi @Brichcja:, like N57 says, if you simply stop creating articles about non-notable players then there won't be any problems. And you can easily search in both 'draft' and 'user' space to see if anyone has a draft article somewhere. GiantSnowman 21:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The simple answer is to create articles on notable subjects. I'm kinda surprised they have been taken to AfD, quite a few of these could have been CSD or PRODed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The O'Hora article was prodded (and deprodded) before being taken to AfD. Number 57 21:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Where it's looking like a snow keep. But in the meantime, it's wasted the time of at least 12 editors (and who know how many have read it). I wouldn't go creating such articles (though they are fine in draft), but what's the point of starting a time-wasting AFD process? How does that help the project? Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Creating in User space is even worse ... who knows how many people have created articles in User space. If it's something experimental ... sure. But if they are actually likely to play soon, then it should be created in draft space. We've seen editors who should know better, creating the articles in their own user space, knowing full well they are planned to be part of the game-day squad in a few days time, but then trying to AFD an article someone else has created - which seems rather odd and WP:OWN to me! We must do this stuff in draft space, so as to not waste other users time. At the same time ... AFDing an article for someone who has fully expected to make a fully-professional start within days? My gosh, what happened to WP:NORUSH and WP:COMMONSENSE. Some editors seem far too interested in applying black and white rules, than constructively editing ... how about starting a dialogue, rather than an AFD? Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with the comments made by User:Nfitz and User:Brichcja. There seems to be an element of gatekeeping and a severe lack of WP:COMMONSENSE. What's the rush? This isn't a case of deleting articles for misinformation or false information, it is other users rashly suggesting deletions for no real purpose, when those same articles will meet notability within very short periods. It seems ridiculous that drafts of non-notable players are being created by certain users (User:GiantSnowman) then when another editor creates an article for the same player due to their imminent notability and involvement with a new club following a move, those articles are being suggested for deletion. Clearly there is an issue here with three separate editors raising similar points. It very much seems to be gatekeeping and power moves by admins who ignore common sense. To any admins reading - this is not a topic that should be shutdown and I suggest either a more common sense approach moving forward (e.g. 3-6 months after a player article is created before it can be considered AfD) or that this topic is discussed properly. FilthyDon (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

3-6 months is excessive. But at the same time in the case of Remy Howarth, it looks like User:GiantSnowman actually prodded it hours before kickoff, but at the same time, he was so sure he was about to make his professional debut, that only 70 minutes before he prodded the article, he'd started his own version of the page at User:GiantSnowman/Remy Howarth! And then, he fails to log either the prod, or his own removal of the prod, on the Talk page, despite editing it later for other reasons - which would help stop anyone else prodding it, which is a possibility for a new page, when the player hasn't even played in a professional league match yet. I've been concerned about this for a while, but the timeline here leaves me aghast! Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note, we always get a surge of these days before the season starts ... if there's a moratorium, it should probably be something like 2-3 weeks before the league starts for players in the starting lineup of pre-season friendlies. Though surely WP:COMMONSENSE already covers this. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right 3-6 months is excessive, it was just a quick suggestion without much thought. Perhaps a a few weeks or a month at the most. Completely agree with you on the rest of your reply, something isn't right there and it shouldn't be ignored. Ultimately, the general feeling from a few users here is that AfD suggestions are too hasty in certain circumstances and on occasion they seem to have more than one motivation behind them. To avoid disputes and this kind of thing in the future, a grace period for all player articles should be seriously considered. FilthyDon (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I worry that a moratorium on proposing deletion (or nominating for deletion) will result in even more BLPs on non-notable footballers slipping through the cracks. We have so many poorly referenced articles on non-notable footballers as it is, and not enough editors to watch them for vandalism and other BLP violations. Allowing more articles of this kind to fester for a longer time isn't helpful to the project in any way. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing a moratorium on doing this. I'm proposing that this doesn't instantly happen to well sourced articles about footballers who even the proposer thinks have a good chance of becoming notable. These articles aren't festering; they're no different or better or worse than hundreds of others. Chris (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Could we go back to Tariq Uwakwe? This lad has played four games in the cup, and scored a hat-trick (as a defender!); but, according to WP:NFOOTY, that is less notable than Remy Howarth coming off the bench as a last minute, time-wasting substitute. The thing is, NFOOTY and GNG are guidelines, meant to guide us; they're not there to govern us. That's why we have WP:IGNORE. This literally says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. " Wikipedia is a better place with an article about Tariq Uwakwe in mainspace, where interested fans can go and find out about the latest bright young thing. It's already had 925 views - that in itself is an indication of notability. (For comparison, Remy Howarth, also in this discussion, has 167). I just don't think that instant, blanket, unbending application of guidelines as rules actually improves WP, whereas the use of WP:COMMONSENSE might. Chris (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not common sense to IAR with GNG. If a player can't even meet NFOOTY - which has been proven to be significantly more lax than GNG - then you've got to make a very good case as to why this person is notable. Don't make articles on people who don't meet the guidelines, and they won't get deleted. A lot of the arguments above are based on WP:CRYSTALBALL - just because something is kept at AfD doesn't mean that they were notable at the time of being nominated. If it is just going to be days or hours until they meet our guidelines - keep them as a draft until after they meet them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I was also going to say that NFOOTY seems easier to pass than GNG, so we're shouldn't be creating articles that don't meet either requirement. Spike 'em (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles that meet NFOOTY and don't meet GNG should actually be deleted, NFOOTY isn't an end run around GNG but just a rule of thumb that GNG is met. Though yes, outside of this football project most people think it needs to be tightened up. Most guidelines on NSPORTS try to meet a threshold in the high 90s percentage wise for meeting NFOOTY means meeting GNG. But I think most people know that NFOOTY falls well below that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Several times I have created articles only to see them deleted and immediately recreated by another virtually identical version. Not encouraging but I guess that what being an administrator allows you to do!!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well the best way to avoid this is to put at least three references that cover the subject in a significant way on the article, then it doesn't matter if NFOOTY is met yet or not. I don't follow soccer deletions all that much. But for hockey players that are deleted before they are notable I know us admins who edit in the subject area undelete the articles once they they do meet GNG so that work is not lost (even if the page has since been recreated). -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As some people have mentioned, users requesting an article for deletion only for that same editor creating the exact same article days or even hours later seems problematic to me and appears as if it is a user trying to artificially increase their articles created numbers. I agree with Nfitz that these articles, if they really must be created before their debut should definitely be in Draftspace and not Userspace. When I click on a redlink to create an article, edited: When I search an article that's not created it specifically shows if there is an article that is in Draftspace, but it does not show that there is one in userspace. Apparently you can search if an article exists in userspace - I actually had no idea you could do that. If I, a now somewhat regular wikipedia user (but far from an expert) had no idea that this was possible, others like me or less experienced than me (which probably accounts for the larger majority) will not be aware of this. However, we can all see that a Draft has been created if we try to create an article for which a draft exists. A draft would stop me and many others from creating my own article since we can specifically see it exists, whereas an article in userspace that we had no clue existed would just be created because in the person's mind, it does not exist. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

When I click on a red link, Wikipedia automatically forces me to the "edit source" viewer. I would have to manually remove the "&action=edit&redlink=1" code from the URL to be able to view the page in the way you are talking about ("it specifically shows if there is an article that is in Draftspace"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You're correct. Thanks Nehme. It works that way when searching from the searchbar, for some reason I was thinking it would be the same thing via redlink. My mistake. I probably should've tested it to make sure before just writing it. I edited my comment to correct it with a strikethrough. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I will repeat this again for the last time - if you are concerned about your non-notable articles being created, simply do not create them, or create them in Draft or User space ready to move them into mainspace when they are notable, as I do. Oh and the reason it's created in User space is because sometimes it can be 2-3 years before somebody becomes notable - if a Draft is left for 6 months it is liable to be deleted. It's not difficult to select 'User' and 'Draft' as options when you do a search, so I suggest you do that, it will bring up anything in those spaces rather than just mainspace. GiantSnowman 08:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As has been stated above, yes the articles should not be created before the guidelines are met, but this practice discourages others who may be put off from becoming more involved when their time is wasted creating an article which they did not think existed, even in draft form. However, having created the drafts, it's also not fair for GS to have to waste his time and bin his version when he has waited for the player to meet the guidelines, only for someone else to try and skip the queue and submit the article before the guidelines are met. I don't know if it can be implemented system-wide, but I would suggest everyone on the project amends their search parameters to include the 'User' space, which will bring up these kinds of drafts if they exist, and probably cause the would-be-creator to stop when they are aware that there's an oven-ready version already present but which isn't eligible for publishing yet (which should be obvious even if they don't fully understand the GNG and NFOOTY requirements). For example, a search for Okera Simmonds on Main only doesn't return any results, but with User included, it's on Page 1. GS can't be the only user with a number of these kind of drafts due to the time limitations of the formal Draft option, so that would at least (hopefully) solve the problem of duplication. It would be helpful if this parameter was a default for all users, but I suppose that's a matter for the entirety of Wikipedia to consider and a proper technical matter to change. Crowsus (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The only time wasted is having to constantly clean up articles like this - but agree that others searching in User and Draft as default is sensible. As I have stated recently, I am not precious about others editing my drafts. GiantSnowman 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think expecting users to start searching the userspace for everyone, before working on a new article in Draftspace is reasonable. Honestly, if we have users who still think it's okay to start serious articles in Userspace, instead of draftspace, and expect others to come into their userspace to work on the article, we need to be correct them! Personally, if other people start editing in my userspace (other than 1 or 2 old articles that others have moved to my userspace against my wishes), I'd not be very happy. One advantage to draftspace over userspace is that users get warnings when they try and create articles that already exist in draftspace. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, the clue is in the name- draftspace is for draft articles. I am not going to go looking in other people's userspaces for draft articles, and if people are storing them there, then tough. Wikipedia warns you if a draft with the name exists, and so is the best way of avoiding these duplicates. Or just don't create articles for people that "may be notable in a year or 2 time". Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Except, of course, that userspace drafts are just as valid as draft space drafts, see Help:Userspace draft. GiantSnowman 15:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - userspace and draft space are practically identical in terms of being draft spaces. I think we are getting a little offtopic. The solution is to not create mainspace articles on players that do not meet our guidelines. Whether players who are likely to meet them in the future live in a draft, userspace draft, sandbox or just created from scratch isn't exactly important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification

Is it just me, or is this much forensic analysis of why Liverpool had to go through three rounds of qualifying for the 2005–06 UEFA Champions League a little much? – PeeJay 22:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't think we need an entire article on that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire article could be summed up in two sentences on the main article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

How did you even find this article?? I would put it up for Speedy Deletion. And most of it doesn't even explain/summarize the qualification matches. 71.208.32.185 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is already nominated for deletion (and it looks like the outcome is going to be deletion). It doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Closed door average attendance figures?

I wasn't sure how these were being handled for league seasons that typically record average attendance, such as the 2020 Major League Soccer season. I checked the archives and it seems like other task forces were not counting the games behind closed doors in the average. But not doing so isn't informative when there are some teams that will ONLY play behind closed doors vs. others that will allow a limited attendance; thus some teams will have artificially inflated attendance compared to others. Frankly, the whole thing is a bit of a wash all things considered, but I wanted to see if the project had an opinion on this matter. Jay eyem (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best answer is but I think it's best we all agree on a solution.--EchetusXe 12:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a note which explains that every health department allows a different number of spectators. Kante4 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a column titled "Closed Door Games" to show more detailed information. Perhaps another one titled "Limited Capacity Games" with a note in the columns indicating the max. Given the limited capacity games, for example Montreal with 250, maybe it's a good idea to remove the Average attendance column for this season. Or even the entire table altogether, since some teams will finish the season with 0, 1 or 2 home match games with fans. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think that notes will be necessary to put things in context. On the page's talk page I suggested having two separate tables: one including closed door games, and one excluding them. I actually don't have an issue with excluding the average attendance for this season as long as there is sufficient prose to explain why it has been changed for this season. I suppose there could be multiple tables to explain the differences in attendance, but I don't necessarily think that will be informative and it might clutter the article. I actually like the idea of having separate columns for "closed door" and "limited capacity" games. It doesn't really change the fact that the average would be unhelpful, but it could give it more context. I think that combined with sufficient prose this would be a good combination to put things in context. Jay eyem (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should take the average attendance for all games for which a non-zero paying attendance was possible. Whether the maximum capacity is limited or 100% of normal, the moment you start making multiple columns to differentiate between the different situations, I think you're taking attendance figures far too seriously. I mean, what are you going to do if for some games the maximum capacity is 25% of normal, some games are 50% of normal and others are 75% of normal? Three different columns? The best solution to me is to disregard the games for which spectators were totally banned and just take the average of the rest. – PeeJay 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be better to just delete the attendance table for these seasons. At the very least they need to be put in context. Having average attendance of teams mixing those with closed door games and those with limited attendance makes no sense. Jay eyem (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too difficult just to put a bit of prose above the table saying something like, "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, attendances at games were limited, causing a reduction in teams' average attendances this season." That would be sufficient context in my book. – PeeJay 15:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that is crucial for the article, but the table itself could still use tweaking. I like RedPatchBoy's suggestion of columns for "limited capacity" and "closed door" games. It wouldn't really change the table all that much, but the context would be in the table itself. I don't think you would need to separate out columns for 25%, 50%, 75%, etc., just state whether or not there was limited attendance. I'm not going to make any changes to the table unless more people think that's a good idea, though. Jay eyem (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just count all games. It'S informative anywaym because its so low then. -Koppapa (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

premature?

I noticed that 2038 FIFA World Cup was created and all of the "bids" are speculative. Any concerns here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

2034 and 2038 ones are far too premature and speculative. And lots of the text is reliant on what happens in 2030, to determine who is eligible to bid. 2030 one is questionable too, although it does at least have some confirmed bids on there. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. Redirect to FIFA World Cup? GiantSnowman 07:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect. I'm unsure about 2030, as it could potentially get some more info quite soon and has some info more than everything past it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

2030 is fine, as it's the next World Cup up for bidding, the process is underway, and it can be described by reliable sources without speculation. The others can be redirected. Smartyllama (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

General take on manager vs (head) coach

Hi, nice to see the project still thriving. :) As I'm trying to clean up, improve and make content on IFK Göteborg more consistent, I've ran across this terminology question regarding manager vs head coach more and more, and I've seen in the archives that it has been discussed from time to time, but mainly in more specific questions. I may have missed something though, so please point me in the right direction if that's the case.

Based on how Swedish football clubs traditionally have organised their personnel, both roles have existed alongside each other, e.g. the head coach (tränare – "trainer") handling day-to-day activities such as training, selecting the team, match coaching etc., and a manager (lagledare – "team leader/manager") which has been mostly an administrative role, not necessarily involved that much at all in actual sports activities (in IFK Göteborg in the 1920s, the manager was someone from the club board). Most of the time, the manager has been relatively unknown, and most if not all English media will only ever name the head coach as "manager". One current club in Allsvenskan use the title manager, but for the combination of the head coach and sporting director roles (most Swedish clubs nowadays have two different persons staffing those positions, or one person taking both roles but having both role titles), corresponding better to the traditional English role. I suppose this is also the case for many other countries that do not use the English organisation type.

Should we strive for some kind of consistency across article and category titles, or is it ok to move e.g. Category:IFK Göteborg managers to Category:IFK Göteborg head coaches (I've seen some examples of this going through the various categories)? The main benefit of keeping things as they are is that "manager" is probably colloquially used for the head coach role even in countries where the title is not used officially (though I see UEFA consistently using "coach" in their squad lists for UEFA play, even for English teams). The drawback is that it can cause confusion in situations where the two roles have existed side by side, as evident by the Swedish example above, where IFK Göteborg had a manager (very much unknown to most people), and a head coach (usually referred to as the manager) at the same time. – Elisson • T • C • 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mikel Arteta's job title has changed from head coach to first-team manager - I think we should probably not worry too much about titles!--EchetusXe 11:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should add a "Manager" or ("Head coach") MoS, similarly to Players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: My point is that we need to worry about the confusion we create if we don't worry about titles. For example: "IFK Göteborg manager Carl Linde recruited the first manager of the club, Sándor Bródy, in 1921." is a "valid" sentence if we disregard titles (Linde was lagledare and Sándor was tränare). But to make sense to the reader, I need to disambiguate the titles, and the easiest way would be to actually say that Bródy was hired as head coach, and follow through with that title throughout categories etc. – Elisson • T • C • 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johan Elisson: Is lagledare comparable to the general manager in North American sports? For example, most NFL teams have general managers to handle transactions and salary negotiations, while the head coach handles the training and gametime decisions. Some head coaches have general manager duties, and Wikipedia articles note de facto general managers.

Anyway, for the main point, I don't see a problem using "manager" and "head coach" interchangeably. I'd use the official title in the lede and use "manager" as the generic term, at least when British English is the preferred ENGVAR and "head coach" in North American articles.

Finally, it doesn't seem like Arteta's responsibilities changed with the job title. He still reports to the managing director and works alongside a Technical Director and the Academy Manager. Even with the "manager" title, he's more of a head coach than a traditional English club manager. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll just note that coach or head coach are used interchangeably in Australia in official and general use. Hack (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: Not necessarily, as e.g. the Swedish national team had a lagledare for a long time, obviously not handling player transfers, but rather handling other administrative duties. It would also depend on club I'd guess. Nowadays the corresponding role to a general manager is usually filled by the sporting director. – Elisson • T • C • 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

They're also interchangeable in England, where each club has their own preferred term. GiantSnowman 18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

national cup is notability?

Excuse me, Kotaro Kume did not play in league competition. But he played against J2 League (fully professional league) club Ehime FC in national cup (Emperor's Cup). Shunta Araki and Yuta Saitai also. Do they meet the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football​? --Amefuri2019 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If a player has played for a team from a league listed at WP:FPL, against another team from a league listed at WP:FPL, in a competitive match, then they are deemed to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Amefuri2019 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry

Should this be retitled to Izmir Derby ? At the moment, the Derby is a redirect. It appears to be notable in my opinion and I watched this on YouTube which was an interesting watch. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would support a RM suggesting such a move. GiantSnowman 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, although should probably be İzmir Derby (with the dotted I), to match İzmir. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a move request on İzmir Derby, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Football Referees

I have come here to address the issue on the notability of FIFA match officials (referees).

The recent article that I created was about a referee (Alan Millner), that was deemed to be deleted via the Articles of Deletion. I requested a deletion review on the page, but even they endorse the deletion close as they said they sources are not accepted other than his receiving his FIFA badge, and the fact he has already retired.

If the original guidelines for the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) were to include referees in this regard, then I entirely agree. But it appears that it does not have the coverage on match officials referees which should have included respectfully.

My suggestion is that referees would be included on Wikipedia for W:N as long as they had significant coverage on important games.

For football (soccer) referees, I suggest that to satisfy notability, is they should be included for important high level international matches and/or competitions for as long the officiated the FIFA World Cup, the UEFA European Championship, the Nations League, whether a tournament, qualifiers or otherwise.

If any questions asked, please kindly leave a reply or my talk page. Thank you. Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to show that meeting your criteria is likely to mean that the referee has received significant coverage in WP:RS such that they pass WP:GNG. I don't think you have shown that here. Spike 'em (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a proper RFC as I suggested, please follow instructions at WP:RFC. GiantSnowman 16:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Milenin, Any actual RfC should probably take place on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) in my view. But before opening a formal RfC it is a very good idea to discuss the content and wording of a proposal informally. For that, views should be sought in as many places where interested editors might be found as possible. Once it is opened, points should be placed on appropriate project discussion pages, and other pages succh as WT:N Also, is this to be a football-specific change, or is it to apply to many different sports? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability Agenda for Football (Soccer) Match Official (Referees) where this subject is now being discussed. A formal RfC has been suggested, but not yet drafted much less opened. Input from project members and other interested editors would be welcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Macclesfield Town F.C.

Is this a Bury situation? Club wound up, ceases to exist, players all released etc.? GiantSnowman 16:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it, although extinction hasn't happened yet according to [14]. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

O that's horrible, I hope they get saved. Govvy (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look hopeful. Sadly, I have been editing the Bury F.C. article through and beyond expulsion, and have also been editing Macclesfield for a while (hope I'm not a jinx). Desperately sad for both clubs' supporters. Paul W (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:AFC Wimbledon v Milton Keynes Dons F.C. rivalry could benefit from expert review

This very old draft article is about a rivalry between two football clubs. While it seems to me that none of the sources cover this rivalry in any significant depth, this may be a result of a misreading based on my unfamiliarity with the topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Although I'm not an expert on football in England, the rivalry between MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon is pretty well-known. I would have expected this article to already exist. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Renaming Africa Cup of Nations from 1957 to 2004

Hi, The names of Africa Cup of Nations editions from 1957 to 2004 was changed to the actuel name, however the real name of these editions is African Cup of Nation. The current name started from the 2006 edition till now. After a discussion on the WP discussion, I opened this section to propose to rename the names of these editions to African Cup of Nations. (Below some links : 1980, 1982, 1996, 2002, 2004, 2004). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that the user who moved the 1957 and 2004 articles (I didn't check all the ones in between) is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. And no evidence of these moves being discussed anywhere. I think they should be moved back to African therefore. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please revert the moves. GiantSnowman 13:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done That's allright, I reverted all the moves. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to add my support for this reversion, in case it is challenged at some point. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Campeonato Paulista

Is A2 fully-pro also? Or just A1 league? Govvy (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

One for WT:FPL. GiantSnowman 11:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, on that note I've prodded Ivan Xavier de Santana unless someone can find a reason to rescue him. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The rules for A2[15] are identical to the rules for A1[16] (CONDIÇÃO DE JOGO para 3, 4 and 5 in each case) - namely no non-professional players over the age of 20 allowed in squads. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Does that mean the A2 is fully-pro also? Govvy (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the Paulista A2 could be considered fully-pro. Only A1 gets national/international TV coverage, so I think it's unlikely all A2 footballers are full-time. Jogurney (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that's exactly what the rules of the competition say. And those same rules (from 2010) are what have been cited for adding A1 to WP:FPL. So I think if we're to treat A2 differently to A1 we will need to find a source that categorically says it is not fully professional. Gricehead (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We can't cite the exact same piece of information to prove that one league is fully pro and another isn't! Either both are or neither is, if everything hinges on that one source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the General Regulations, which cover all Paulista competitions[17] specifically distinguish A1, A2, A3 and Segunda (fourth level) as "professional competitions", as opposed to other non-professional competitions (articles 5 and 22) and specifically define what they mean by a professional competition (glossary, p15) Gricehead (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe we had a lengthy discussion about the fully-pro nature of various Brazilian state championship (top tier primarily) where we concluded there was sufficient evidence that all players were full-time in certain championships (including Paulista) because of TV revenues, attendance, player salaries, etc. If you think all Paulista A2 players are full-time (i.e., receive a living wage solely from playing football), we may want to add it to the list at WP:FPL. However, I would be surprised given the lack of coverage of these matches outside of São Paulo state. Jogurney (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original discussion, only this more recent one that was unresolved. Perhaps we need to revisit this, but I seemed to remember a comprehensive discussion long ago. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the FA Women's Championship an FPL?

Is the FA Women's Championship a fully professional league and, therefore, does any player that makes an appearance pass WP:NFOOTY? Thanks Spiderone 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, no; my understanding is that it took a long time to get the FA Women's Super League fully-pro and that, along with the American League, they are (currently) the only fully-pro women's league in the world. GiantSnowman 19:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Gareth Bale

Because of speculation, could do with another set of eyes on the article 2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season which has a little bit of disruptive editing. Also Danny Rose (footballer, born 1990) seems to be getting some disruptive edits to watch, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohun Bagan A.C.

Hey! A lot of discussions have been occurring on the talk page here. The first was about a merge discussion and the second was a rename discussion. Recently, in January 2020, it was announced that RPSG Group, the owners of Indian Super League side ATK had bought an 80% stake in I-League club Mohun Bagan. Thus, this would involve both the clubs merging in June 2020. source Due to Covid, things were delayed but finally, on 10 July 2020, it was announced that the merger was complete and that the club was renamed as ATK Mohun Bagan FC. source source. Since then, we had a discussion on the Mohun Bagan page about whether to merge the Mohun Bagan page with a created ATK Mohun Bagan FC page, which was eventually merged. And now recently we had a move discussion which was about renaming the Mohun Bagan page ATK Mohun Bagan FC due to the name change. The discussion was, in my opinion, a mix of oppose and support but also there was not a lot of discussion from non Indian football editors and eventually the page was closed by a non-admin who mainly edits Mohun Bagan pages.

What do we think here? I want to see what non-Indian football editors think because, I'll be honest, that discussion on the talk page was horrible. The opposes were mainly from Bagan fans or new accounts and most of it revolved around how renaming the page would "remove the history" of the club. I also wasn't happy that the discussion was closed, without any real consensus, by a user who doesn't have a lot of contributions to wikipedia (nothing since July until today) and who edits heavily Mohun Bagan pages. I really want to get this resolved before the new season starts. Thanks. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have said on this topic previously - ignored by most people - is that standard practice when two existing, notable clubs merge is to create an entirely new article. See e.g. Dagenham F.C. + Redbridge Forest F.C. = Dagenham & Redbridge F.C.; also the page move close needs to be undone and re-opened, entirely inappropriate close, it needs to be done by an uninvolved admin (and I am involved). GiantSnowman 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you think the closer was not neutral, then you should consider WP:MR. Spike 'em (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

the discussion was closed suddenly, with bad faith. that too even by the user who doesn't follow NPOV, says for MBAC, started contribution in wiki with the page merge related discussion of this club. Also I agree with giantsnowman regarding creation of new article. I discussed it here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#ATK-Mohunbagan. But, it was merged without any proper discussion and clarifications. whatever it is, the RM need to be reopened. ❯❯❯   S A H A 16:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) The problem is that despite these discussions being posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, we never got much from anyone outside of Indian football or Mohun Bagan editors (besides GiantSnowman). Both discussions meanwhile eventually just became huge messes where you had brand new accounts being created and a couple anons who all they did was shoot personal attacks at users who did support having a new page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) I agree with you about the merge but I didn't want to bring that up. That discussion was also horrible and my thinking is that I don't mind dropping it until the club itself clarifies when it considers its "foundation date". Until then though, the name of the club has certainly changed. Spike 'em (talk · contribs), would WP:MR work for me here? I was reading it before and saw "If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and the next paragraph basically tells me to discuss it with the user but after past discussions I know that would be a waste of time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ArsenalFan700, I think, a warning message should be added in the user's talkpage since it was against WP:RMNAC and revert the closure. if he does again then taking to ANI. ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure about a warning but I agree with GS that it should probably be reverted since the user didn't really provide an impartial assessment of the discussion and, IMO, there was no clear consensus. I would actually argue that consensus was aiming towards moving the page. The first oppose vote was about how the club was a "society" but the page is clearly about the football club which has had its name changed and verified by the AIFF. That same user starts to talk about history and all of that but I don't think that makes sense. Next oppose tried to argue WP:COMMONNAME but the name of the club was only announced on 10 July 2020 and since then the club has been referred to as that. The next oppose is from a user who has 99% of his contributions on articles pertaining to Mohun Bagan and all he says is that he agrees that "this would cause confusion" which I don't get. Next oppose is how we never changed the name of the page before when a sponsor was in the club's name and how changing the name now would "dilute the history, footballing achievements and foundation year of the club". He also says "These two clubs are unique in their footballing history in India and it's a shame to rename this just because of ISL. We never had this renaming drama before". The user is basically opposing strictly based on emotion because he doesn't want the name of his club changed. The name change wouldn't dilute anything unless the club itself doesn't recognize those past achievements and if so, that doesn't concern here as this is wikipedia. Also, just because we never changed the name before doesn't mean that we should not do it here. Indian football wikipedia articles were mainly edited by me and another user for years and we just never bothered to change it when Mohun Bagan was McDowell's Mohun Bagan. East Bengal used to be Kingfisher East Bengal. The last oppose once again is about diluting the history of the club. How anyone can come here and actually close this discussion based on these points is beyond me. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

100% agree ❯❯❯   S A H A 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

the brand new accounts should be tagged WP:CANVAS. I know how it works. anyone of the editors in the discussion shares screenshots and links all over FB fan groups. Vandalism threats also come. Thank god the pages are protected. ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

btw, ArsenalFan700 talked with Lee and he referred to WP:BADNAC. And I think we should revert it now. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I am going to revert. Definitely is a conflict of interest and little experience on wikipedia. I also think this should ultimately be the decision of an admin. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

ArsenalFan700, did you report the user anywhere? ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we have enough comments/opinions to proceed. And accounts like Ztruc, Aarul Chandekar, M Kariyappa should be considered as CANVAS, since all of them opened their account for MB discussion only. ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, is there a way I can contact an admin board to get this discussion closed? It seems to have gone on long enough and only 1 response per day now by 1 user. Probably should be closed now before the section in the talk page becomes even more bloated. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You want WP:ANRFC. GiantSnowman 20:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Martinez fee and 2020–21 Arsenal F.C. season article

Someone added the transfer, with a reference to Arsenal's official website, which makes no mention of a fee. I added an additional reference which says it's £16m up to £20m in add-ons. CosminSeciu then removes that ref and replaces it with another that says the fee is £20m and changes the fee to match the reference. I undid that edit and begin a topic on the talk page. CosminSeciu undid that. I see there was still no response on the talk page, so i did some digging and found some sites which say the fee is undisclosed. So i commented that on the talk page and changed it to undisclosed in the article, with the new reference, and wrote "see talk page" in the edit summary. CosminSeciu undid that and at this point it's clear they're ignoring the talk page.

The transfer fee has been reported differently by various media outlets, as i mentioned on the talk page. How do we know which is correct or how do we if know if the fee is undisclosed or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8aa3:c300:15aa:a74b:4d32:5771 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't know. Why not write 16-20 instead of relying on a single source. -Koppapa (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That's one way it could be done. Or undisclosed and add a note which says it's reported to be 17-20, using the Sky Sports list reference which i used before, and other sources. But it looks like the editor will revert it whichever way, because "we know" apparently, even though the media don't appear to know, and they name-dropped the Standard, that says in their article "a fee that could eventually rise to £20m", and the Times, which i looked for and couldn't even find a single mention of it on the Times website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8aa3:c300:40bc:5b79:f7bb:dd2d (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit, undisclosed using the Sky Sports source and a note with two sources there for the reported fee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8aa3:c300:40bc:5b79:f7bb:dd2d (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Which seemed ok, but i just noticed there's a cite error at the bottom of the article, so i moved the references out of the note, but the cite error is still there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8aa3:c300:40bc:5b79:f7bb:dd2d (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)