Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 151

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Iggy the Swan in topic Honours in info box
Archive 145←Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153→Archive 155

Village pump proposals

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

1984 European Cup Winners' Cup Final

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This Indonesian IP user and his socks like this, this and this insist in add irrelevant info in the article (This would be both clubs' only Cup Winners' Cup final; as the competition was folded in 1999, Porto – which would win both the European Cup and UEFA Cup over the next 20 years – will never achieve the record of winning all three pre-1999 major European trophies (European Cup/Champions League, UEFA Cup/Europa League and the Cup Winners' Cup).). Despite that info can be important for the FC Porto history (one of the contestants), it does not in terms of the Winners Cup final (it was the club's first UEFA competition final and lost it, the 2000s events like win the CL and the EL are not related with it), but for that IP doesn't matter in it and insist in WP:UNDUE the article. Also insist in adding a wrong formation being actually the correct this (added in the Italian version of the article), more accurate with Zona mista, used at the time by Juventus.

Additionally, the same IP insist in vandalizing the UEFA club competition records and statistics article. I explained why his edits were wrong (Multiple titles in a single competition are not related with the [European] treble. Chelsea was the only club to win a competition related with the treble [2012-13:Europa League] after being eliminated from another related with it [2012-13 Champions League]. WITHOUT THIS they would be the 2nd English club to achieve the European treble after Manchester United) but he insist in adding it call me "vandal". Please check both articles, thanks.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is also a sock of that Indonesian user. Please check it, thanks.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This editor should be blocked Dr Salvus 19:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: I wonder why 179.6.24.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (a Peruvian IP) has the exact same concern as this Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), up to the point the latter overwrite the ID of the first. Dantetheperuvian is definitely violating WP:LOUTSOCK and should be blocked, not me. And also: "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden." 36.88.157.213 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this any worse than you editing in violation of a block? Spike 'em (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for article name?

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I recently created Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics), an article about the 2012 Olympic women's soccer semifinal which is slated to appear at DYK soon. On the talk page, a complaint has been raised that the article title doesn't provide enough context to be understandable for the reader. I get the critique, but must acknowledge that I had difficulty coming up with a good title when working on the page. The only article on an Olympic match that we had was about a gold medal match, which didn't allow for a similar title. I've seen some match FAs that had the score in the title; do you think this is a good method, or do you have any other ideas? The wisdom of the WT:FOOTY crowd would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Given how articles are named at Category:International association football matches, I would say something like 2012 Summer Olympics Canada v United States soccer match, or Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics soccer match). Nehme1499 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
A lot of matches in that category are either the first or last match involving one of the teams or they are easily recognisable from the competition (19whenever XYZ Cup final) so copying that format might not be best. This match is remembered for the score so I'd include the score in the title. Something like Canada 3–4 United States (2012 Summer Olympics soccer match). You'll almost certainly need to include the fact it's a football match in the title because Canada and the US will have faced each other in other sports and the 2012 Olympics and I'm 100% sure there will have been a 4–3 in other sports they've competed against each other in like ice hockey. See WP:NCEVENTS for further advice. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Definitely needs soccer in the article title. Either v or with the score seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(e/c) I don't see why we would need to include the score in the title. Wouldn't (2012 Summer Olympics soccer match) be enough of a disambiguator? Nehme1499 09:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Other matches which are remembered for the score (eg- Motherwell F.C. 6–6 Hibernian F.C. and Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.) have the score in the title so I don't see why this should be any different. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this Olympic match remembered for the score specifically, or just the result? My understanding is that we generally only have the score in the title if it was the score specifically that was noteworthy (it broke a record or was in some way freakish)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Stevie's thought. It's only remembered for the number of goals scored (I think) Dr Salvus 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  Question:  : Wouldn't it be better if we opened a discussion at WP:RM instead of writing here? Dr Salvus 10:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(ec) As far as I can see it's remembered more generally for being "the greatest knockout match in major-tournament football", not specifically because it finished 4-3 (which is not an unusual scoreline) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
If Chris is right, I think the actual title is the best. For example the same kind of title is used at Italy v West Germany (1970 FIFA World Cup) which we remember it as "The match of the century" Dr Salvus 10:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I get what your saying Chris but if it had finished 2–1 instead of 4–3 (same result, different score) would it still have been called "the greatest knockout match in major-tournament football"? We'll never know but it's equally likely that it wouldn't have been. A match like this is remembered because the score was what it was. It's not like One team in Tallinn or Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) which are notable for things that happened outwith the match itself. Tbf though, I don't think it will make much difference to anyone searching for it if the score is in the title or not.

There's an argument that that Italy–West Germany match should be at Match of the century (1970 FIFA World Cup) just like we have Battle of Berne (1954 FIFA World Cup) and Disgrace of Gijón. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Canada v USA remembered with a particular name as for example Italy v West Germany is? If so, I'd use the name it's remembered. Otherwise, I'd use the title with its score. There have been billion of matches which were famous for their spectacle but don't have the article concerning the match because there were less than X goals. If there hadn't been seven goals, its page wouldn't even deserve being created. Dr Salvus 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Reece James - Club World Cup

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Various IPs are adding that Reece James (footballer, born 1999) won the Club World Cup - I dispute this because he was not even in the squad for any of the games! Thoughts? GiantSnowman 13:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that the source being used for this claim is simply the match report on the CWC final, wherein James isn't even mentioned, I think removing it is perfectly valid. If there are any sources which actually state that James won this tournament then we can get back into that debate over whether players who didn't even play in a tournament can have the honour of winning it, but in the absence even of that I think the removal of this claim is perfectly justified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: - thanks, fully agree. I'm at 3RR if you wouldn't mind stepping in... GiantSnowman 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know how to categorise the discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Have a look at this RM Talk:Italy v West Germany (1970 FIFA World Cup) Dr Salvus 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) at AfD

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Obvious, as usual, WP:CANVASS... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Wrong again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. And, on top of that, it's an open secret that, yes, some users, particularly on sports Wikiprojects, particularly on certain sports Wikiprojects, have preconceived opinions on notability which are at odds with the wider community and this is hard to interpret as anything but fulfilling "the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Well it's not indiscriminate, as I notified the two interested projects (this and the Danish one). And again, it's not canvasing, as I've taken onboard the advice of @Mjroots: after the issue was raised with me before. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian:. The notice is to a Wikiproject relevant to the article. There is no suggestion of how editors are expected to !vote in the discussion, therefore it is neutral. Lugnuts is not editing disruptively here. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Mjroots Respectuflly disagree. This kind of notification is entirely unnecessary. The fact is that the vast majority of AfDs are not notified to Wikiprojects, and that does not prevent them from getting proper treatment at AfD. On top of that, the Wikiproject already has it's own, specific, Articles alerts section... On top of that, there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Mjroots that it's valid to ask a WikiProject to participate. Although this complaint is less ridiculous than BilledMammal calling this WikiProject a "partisan group" on the AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
It's still indiscriminate, entirely unnecessary, and a blatant call for attention (why are these AfDs so special that they need to be notified within minutes of being started? If the AfDs had lasted the better part of a week, and nobody had commented, maybe, but no way here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem with a user notifying a WikiProject on the talk page. The articles alert and sorting are ways that editors can see the AfDs, but not all (including me and I've been here a while) use them. Canvassing is posting a not neutral request to comment or posting to specific people. --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Canvassing is also posting to a non-neutral audience. Given how nearly every single person who has responded here and at the AfD has !voted "Keep passes NFOOTY" or a close variant thereof, it's hard to argue that this is not a non-neutral audience... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Posting on the correct project is not canvassing, stop being daft. Even if we all disagree with you.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Given how nearly every single person who has responded here and at the AfD has !voted "Keep passes NFOOTY" or a close variant thereof Not true, I voted speedy keep because that AFD is a mess of random articles thrown together by you. Which I would have still thought regardless of this being posted here. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a complete and utter misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. The post made was NOT sent indiscriminately as it was posted on the project talk page, not to several individual users. It is neutral, because it does not take a position on the matter. There is no vote-stacking, and this accusation of WP:FOOTY as such is absurd (plus AfD is not a vote). And there was nothing secretive about this post. WP:CANVASS makes it explicitly clear that an editor can place a message at the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion, and I certainly think nominating 19 articles at once for deletion (improperly, I might add) would be of interest to the project. Jay eyem (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

George Weah

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

does the match he played for liberia in 2019 not count as an official cap?Muur (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

According to GSA, NFT and RSSSF, he played in a 2018 friendly vs Nigeria. Nehme1499 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Usually a game where a team makes seven substitutions doesn't count as a full international. Hack (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course friendlies count, even if they have altered rules.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No, they do not. Not playing by FIFA rules/not recongisned by FIFA = not recognised by us. GiantSnowman 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
According to the RSSSF link posted above, this one was recognised by FIFA. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Not in 2019...so either there was a typo by OP or there was a second game... GiantSnowman 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
He meant the 2018 game. But how do we even know, FIFA has no list of matches anywhere, does it? Maybe somewhere around the world ranking pages? -Koppapa (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be original research but you could calculate the difference between the 20 September and 25 October FIFA rankings. Probably not a reliable source but this site claims that ranking points were not being awarded to Nigeria. Hack (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources say (GSA, NFT, RSSSF); we shouldn't be determining whether a game was official or not on our own. Nehme1499 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

MOS:ITALIC is clear, and the only reason I can see to use it is for emphasis, but what are we emphasizing? It should most certainly not be emphasized. Similarly, in most cases, the words are not the starts of sentences nor are they complete sentences. Where in MOS:CAPS does it make sense to have did not qualify be capitalized in a table? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: "Did not enter" is a complete sentence. As are the other three displayed in the Competitive record table therefore MOS:CAPS wouldn't apply. Whether they need to be italicised is a different question and though I prefer it visually, if it goes against MOS:ITALIC I'm not set against changing it. What do people think?
I was talking with @Stevie fae Scotland: about this table earlier and @Dannyphx: made the change on the US Virgin Islands page that started this discussion.‎ Felixsv7 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I think having "did not enter", "did not qualify", etc. italicised while the actual results aren't gives an easy visual difference between actual results and competitons which the national team didn't participate. --SuperJew (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The only reason I italicised it was because it was done so at Scotland national football team#Competitive record. I thought, as it is a featured article, it was the correct model to follow and that all these sorts of issues would have been discussed and addressed. I have no real preference but I do agree with SuperJew that it makes a distinction between when they did and didn't compete. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Did not enter is not a complete sentence. It is a clause that can stand on its own, but the complete sentence is "[the team] did not enter [the competition]".
A thought is not enough to ignore MOS:ITALIC. What reason provided at the manual of style supports its use anywhere in such tables? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I also note an incorrect use of MOS:FLAGICON in that article, at least the template uses {{flag}}, but it's simply decoration that should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not a violation of FLAGICON if the name of the country is next to the flag. Nehme1499 19:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As I say, I have no real preference. I just copied an article I assumed to be correct. If it is against MOS:ITALIC (and I haven't checked) then I'll support changing it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It is there in the template, but then you have an WP:OVERLINK violation. The Scotland article has neither the flag nor name so it is not an issue.
However, what part of MOS:ITALIC is being utilized here? It easily fails any reason provided and appears to be used simply for emphasis, which is not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, an independent clause is a complete sentence - but I'm not really here to argue grammar. Secondly, what's your specific concern with the current flag layout on the template? There was a discussion several months ago to move the template towards compliancy with MOS:FLAG and the agreed upon structure is now displayed, with links to the previous structure for reference. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, I don't think Walter is saying there is a problem regarding the use of flags in the template. Correct me if I'm wrong though. If the overlink issue is the country names, I have no qualms removing those links either. I can't think of another example of a flag with an unlinked country next to it though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that the link is generated by the template itself, wouldn't it imply that all articles using the template (supposedly) violate OVERLINK? Nehme1499 10:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Correct. Not much concern about the flag in the template, the article has a {{flagicon}}. Biggest concern is why we use italics in so many places when the only reason is that we want to make it look different. They should not be used in phrases like "did not qualify" or "not a FIFA member". The fact that those already span columns and rows should inform the reader sufficiently.
I have also seen it used when a position is vacant, both in the infobox and in the staff table. I have also seen it on manager record tables around "present". None of these are supported by MOS:ITALIC and we should not be encouraging their use. I would, at the very least, like to remove them from the templates or samples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
So I personally don't have an issue with using italics to emphasise "Did not qualify" or "Not a FIFA member" but again, not a strong pushback, only that it would then involve a massive editing job when I don't feel the mistake is an egregious one. I do agree that "present" in tables doesn't need to be italicised but feel that Vacant does need to be in italics to avoid readers thinking that it could be the manager's name (however unlikely!) Felixsv7 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I always use italics for nouns in fields where names are usually placed, indeed to avoid the problem Felix noted above. I don't know if these cases are treated in a specific MOS. Nehme1499 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Clubs in European/international football articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Since there is no format templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for "ClubName in European football" articles, what should those articles consist of? Where do we draw the WP:NOTSTATS line in those tables - should there be only "Record by competition" and "Record by country" tables (like at Arsenal, City, Liverpool articles), or are the other statistical tables, like a full head-to-head record for every single opponent (like at United, Chelsea, Bayern articles) also acceptable? Snowflake91 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

FC Bayern Munich in international football is really first rate, that should be put forward for FA. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Those football boxes on the Bayern article are not a good way to break up the text like that. If there was a way to alter it so it appeared at the side of the page, like we do with photos, rather than right across the whole page, it would be so much better. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Colours for positive/negative win ratio in those tables are completely unnecessary and should not be the standard for those articles, and should be removed ASAP - Bayern doesnt have colours in any of the "by competition / by country / by club" tables, and you cited this article as an example. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought the article was really good, I don't really know colours so well, I am somewhat colour-blind!! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Bayern article is kinda good, but I was referring to IP comments and the Chelsea article, which is overkill with 3 coloured tables. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1 - you started to change other users edits without discuss this on the talk page to see and find out other users or fans opinions. 2 - who are you to decide what is good and what is not without other users opinions? 3 - there is no standard templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for clubs in international/european competitions and this is the reason why other users adding their contribution. when there will be a standard template for all clubs, then it will have to be respected. 4 - you have taken into account that other users may have different opinions than yours? 5 - disputes are resolved by discussions, not by deleting other users' edits. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.80.151 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
And who are you to decide that colours and crufty unsourced tables are necessary against all accessibility and WP:NOSTATS logic, not to mention that its you who is making major changes to the articles without discussing it first, and then you accuse others of not discussing and "vandalising" ? Snowflake91 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
how do you know i modified the article in December? do you have strong arguments to sustain your affirmations? otherwise, your words remain just a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.80.151 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I just looked at the Chelsea article, looks like you two are having an edit-war! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
yes, you have right. we will try to understand each other. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.80.151 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The return of the Charley McMillan-Lopez saga

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

If you may all remember there was some 'controversy' when this player "signed" for Prestatyn Town in January previous discussion here with regards to claims made by the manager in a club tweet he had played for Wrexham and various other clubs as well as claims on LinkedIn, NFT and Transfermkt around various professional clubs. Given lack of verifiable evidence on the previous clubs, they were removed. Anonymous IPs over past two days keep re-adding clubs and changing details. Latest one says in the description that he played for Wrexham in "training" and appeared for Braintree for sometime. I have reverted again and removed the bit about Wrexham fans with the source, given in retrospect was perhaps a little unfair - but the rest of the article is sourced and I don't think controversial. I have asked the IP editor to provide verifiable sources for the clubs.

Interestingly the player has not played for Prestatyn after he "signed".

Finally - can anyone find a DOB that doesn't contradict another one that is reliable - as you will see on the talk page, three different ones provided. The IP editor has changed on two occasions to 27 March 1995 (from 1997)

Also, have also seen reference to full name being Charley McMillan-Lopez Dos Santos.

Might be worth keeping an eye on.

Zanoni (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess is he played for those teams on trial and was able to get away with a technicality of "I played for them!" but like, on trial. so a half truth.Muur (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have added a new bit around at least one pre-season friendly in Aug 20 for Braintree Town and I have moved the section on claimed clubs which was removed by GS to the Talk page Zanoni (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why the IP is trying to make him older. Usually it's the other way. His career is on transfermarkt now, though I don't know how reliable it is. The 2016–17 season was a daft one at Port Vale and it's possible a teenage forward was put in the youth team from Estonian football without being mentioned in the press. According to ChazMclopez though he was in his 20s at the time, which does not seem credible. It just doesn't add up. A striker that has been at the Spurs academy, Albania, Kosovo and Estonia and no local journalists hears about this and thinks it's worth reporting his story. If his career was genuine then I'm sure it would have been picked up by now. And he's now at a second tier Welsh club where the manager is seen as a buffoon and he misses his debut because he's stuck in traffic... never to be heard of again? I wouldn't trust anything said about his career before 2020. Obviously this guy is a fantasist.--EchetusXe 13:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
EchetusXe Seems from a reply to a Twitter thread today that Prestatyn Town have confirmed he was meant to come for a trial "but never showed got stuck at Shotton station apparently" and hence never signed and is not at the club. Zanoni (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. It is user edited, like Wikipedia... GiantSnowman 21:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Transfermarkt tends to be more reliable than Wikipedia made me realize the disparity in how Wikipedia users and the average person view certain sites. Nehme1499 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
To miss one debut through bad traffic may be regarded as a misfortune, to miss two debuts through bad traffic seems like carelessness.--EchetusXe 15:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2015 Tulsa Roughnecks FC season

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am a bit confused, I see the United Soccer League was on the fully pro list, but the third division? Does the season pass NSEASONS or not? Not to mention GNG! Govvy (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, yes, it does meet WP:NSEASONS. The United Soccer League (the USL Championship, as it's now named) was the third tier at the time, but then moved up to the second tier in 2017. As for WP:GNG, here's some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It was also the club's inaugural season, so sources such as [6] [7] [8] also apply, and that's before getting into game-by-game coverage. The article needs a ton of work, but it's notable. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

  • Josef Adelbrecht (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in the war. His German wikipedia article states he was killed on the Russian front NW of Moscow.
  • Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
  • Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
  • Frans Christiaens (Belgium) - no details in his article but stated in article on his club Lierse S.K. to have been killed in air raid but allegation unsourced. The air raid is not mentioned in the French wikipedia article on the club.
  • Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
  • Bronislaw Fichtel (Poland) - disputed death date (see talk page)
  • Hermann Flick (Germany)
  • Josef Fruhwirth (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in WWII. His article in Germany wikipedia has citation to an Austrian newspaper report of his death which I find unreadable.
  • Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
  • Franz Krumm (Germany)
  • Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
  • Johann Luef (Austria) - his German wikipedia article indicates he died of wounds in hospital in East Prussia.
  • Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
  • Vladimir Markov (footballer) (Russia) - Stated in Olympedia to have died in Leningrad in 1942, which coincided with the long running siege of the city. Can evidence be found for treating him as a victim of the siege?
  • Alexander Martinek (Austria)
  • Otto Martwig (Germany)
  • Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
  • August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
  • Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war.
  • Jean Petit (footballer, born 1914) (Belgium) - His French wikipedia article indicates without citation or death location given that he was a doctor = probably civilian rather than military - who was killed in a bombardment preceding the Alied invasion of Normandy.
  • Alfreds Plade (Latvia) - was added to the list but I have taken it out and copied it on list talk page as the citations used did not indicate how he died or any service. There are two citations in his article on Latvian wikipedia (which states he was repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, served implicitly in their forces and fell on the Eastern Front) but I find both unreadable.
  • Kurts Plade (Latvia) - Repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, his Latvian wikipedia article states he was 'killed' (no further detail) in February 1945 in Poznan, Poland. I note his death coincided with the Soviet siege of Poznan.
  • Bernardo Poli (Italy) - Italian wikipedia indicates he died in 'an unspecified war accident' serving as an airman. Only citation in English wikipedia does not indicate manner of his death.
  • Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
  • Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
  • Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
  • Holger Salin (Finland)
  • Aristotel Samsuri (Albania) - Reportedly executed in German concentration camp in Greece as a Communist partisan between 1942/1944, but was claimed by the postwar Communist regime of Albania to have escaped and survived before proclaiming him a martyr in 1981.
  • Gennaro Santillo (Italy) - Categorised as Italian military personnel killed in the war but no indications of military service on Italian wikipedia. Would like to be more certain of his status (mil or civ) before adding him.
  • Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here in case he is found to have served during the war.
  • Harry Spencer (footballer) (New Zealand, previously played in England) - There are similarities with a New Zealand soldier known to the CWGC (see talk page of article). Can someone find confirmation they are the same man?
  • Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
  • Erwin Stührk (Germany) - disputable death date, death place given in German war grave site not easy to ascertain as it only gives German form of name rather than its vernacular.
  • Ludwik Szabakiewicz (Poland) - disputable death details, particularly date
  • Jules Van Craen (Belgium) - his French wikipedia article states he died 'in one of the battles of World War II' but he did not die until October 1945, no location for the death or the battle stated. His death circumstances need further investigation.- UPDATE - His Dutch wikipedia article states he died under treatment for stomach cancer which came to light after a football injury in 1943. No indication of military service.Cloptonson (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
  • Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
  • Heinz Warnken (Germany) - German wikipedia gives him as gefallen (fallen) in 1943 but no detail of precise death date or death place.
  • Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death is disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into their articles.Cloptonson (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

2020 AFC Solidarity Cup

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. A discussion was initially started on the 2020 AFC Solidarity Cup cup page regarding which teams qualified for the tournament. The only participant on the discussion was me and two other users (both have now been banned due to sockpuppetry for one week). Before the ban, the user expanded the page, even though when the page's relevance is close to nothing, as except the initial announcement and the cancellation announcement nothing else was confirmed officially. Can someone add to the discussion on the page's talk page so that something can be done regarding the page which is practically a stub (non-relevant at the top of it), but it is posed as if it is not.--Anbans 585 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments11 people in discussion

Shall we create a page in which we put the football websites whose photos aren't copyrighted Dr Salvus 10:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there any......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Soccer.ru (Ticket OTRS: #2008100510027116)
Football.ua (Ticket OTRS: #2011101010016175)
Statistichelilla.it (Ticket OTRS: # 201605111000776)
Dr Salvus 12:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
There are also YouTube channels such as Rete8 and TVSEI. Nehme1499 13:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea; it's always good to know where to find free-to-use images. Nehme1499 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added a new section to WP:FOOTY concerning websites with non-copyrighted images. Dr Salvus 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This could be a dangerous road to go down, it's not always just as simple as saying "this image isn't copyrighted". Often, works are copyrighted from the moment they are created, whether the creater likes it or not. It is also possible for someone to create and publish something in a country with little or no copyright laws but then to use the copyright laws in another country to protect their work. Sticking with stuff that has been licenced for reuse or we know for a fact is in the public domain means there's no risk to the Wikimedia Foundation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, do those OTRS tickets verify that all images from their website can be used by Wikipedia and are thus appropriately licenced? I would expect they've only licenced the specific photos that someone from wiki asked them about, not their entire website. Note: this would need someone with OTRS access to confirm. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Joseph2302 I've taken the links from the Italian WP:FOOTY (it:Progetto:Calcio) so I guess they've licensed for the whole site. Dr Salvus 16:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This whole story seems bizarre and requires IMO people with different access and skills than the average WP:FOOTY editor. In general, I also think this should be dealt with on Commons. If these sites are indeed with freely sourced photos (fully or partially), there should be a page on Commons detailing it (like there is for Flickr). --SuperJew (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Clog Wolf (talk · contribs) added this to the project page:

Here are websites whose photos are not copyrighted

I have had to remove images sourced to soccer.ru as they were placed there from a clearly copyrighted source. I do not know what is stated at the OTRS, but I find the blanket statement misleading. Feel free to restore this to the project page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out that Dr Salvus added the content. Clog Wolf only made a minor change to it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
As far as I've understood, I made a mistake... Apologise. I'd got confused by some examperienced users who have uploaded photos from these sites Dr Salvus 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Photographer copyright laws state that whoever pushed the button owns the copyright to the image as soon as the shutter is released and will own that copyright throughout their life and 70 years afterwards. One of the things I learned about during the whole Monkey selfie copyright dispute. Unless there is a specific release, I do not believe the image is useable on Wikipedia.--dashiellx (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Think the best thing we can do is asking to a person who can see the OTRS and tell us what there's written there. Does anyone know one? Dr Salvus 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I wasn't the one who added it, it was Dr Salvus (talk · contribs). I just fixed the spelling of "images" which Salvus had misspelled. Clog Wolf Howl 04:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you (and SuperJew before you) for the correction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I've asked at the Italian WT:FOOTY and an admin has said so
"Possiamo usare tutte le foto di questi siti, ammesso che il copyright sia loro e non di altri siti ovviamente."
"We can use all the photos from these sites as long as the copyright is theirs and obviously not of others" Dr Salvus 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
So at this point, can we re-put the sites whose photos aren't copyrighted to the WP:FOOTY page? Dr Salvus 18:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but if someone used the photo on the Italian Wiki, we can also use it on here so we wouldn't need to do anything other than copy it from the Italian version. I don't see any point especially if any photos uploaded via the Italian Wiki have the correct licences/permissions attached. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess the question is can the license be language wiki specific? --dashiellx (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Dashiellx, I don't think so. I guess this rule is the same in all the wikis Dr Salvus 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, I would agree, but you know lawyers.... --dashiellx (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Ideally, every language version of Wikipedia would just use images uploaded to Commons. If an image is free enough for Commons, it's free enough for en-wiki.
Also, FC Zenit shares its photos under a free license (ticket #2010101210006666), though obviously, this does not apply to third party photos that appear on their site. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC: Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Dejan Kulusevski

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

Career stats table, I am confused by the table, two Parma loans, but it's the same season on two different rows for Parma, and the Atalanta row isn't added to the total? So I am getting confused by this career table. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

He spent the first half of the 2019-20 season on loan at Parma from Atalanta, then spent the second half of the same season on loan at Parma from Juventus. GiantSnowman 20:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I still find the table odd to look at. I thought the Atalanta stats would have been added to the total row. I don't know why loans are not added to the total row. Govvy (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
All stats should be included in the total row...it's just editors being lazy/bad at maths. GiantSnowman 20:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Govvy Neither do I. I also don't like it as he played the whole season with the same club so I'd add the total row for Parma. If I'm not wrong, it.wiki does what I've said above and think it goes well Dr Salvus 20:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Separate spells should not be amalgamated like that. GiantSnowman 20:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The logic behind separated loans within the same season being displayed that way is that it's consistent with how we display these loans in the infobox. The Italian Wikipedia merge the Atalanta loans into one in the infobox, which is consistent with their club stats table. Nehme1499 20:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added the total row to Parma Dr Salvus 08:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Which I have reverted. The second Parma spell needs to be under Juventus, as that was the parent club, and we do not add totals for separate spells with the same club. GiantSnowman 10:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman btw, is the edit I've done today at Federico Gatti wrong too? He spent the first half of this season at Frosinone, he was bought by Juventus who they loaned him back to Frosinone. Shouldn't there be a total row either? However, I believe we should include total rows in Kulusevski's example (but it's only my opinion) Dr Salvus 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Federico Gatti table is wrong. GiantSnowman 11:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest to add a total row below the second Parma row. Does this go well? Look below for an example

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club Season League National Cup League Cup Continental Other Total
Division Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals
Parma (loan) 2019–20 Serie A 19 6 1 0 — — — 20 6
Parma Total 36 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 10

Dr Salvus 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if these tables are unfriendly to people with dyslexia. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
So was I. It's the reason I'd include total rows Dr Salvus 11:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
again - why do we need a Parma total in the stats table? GiantSnowman 11:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, he did play the whole season with the same team. Readers bad at math would have problems at reading his 2019-20 stats (or simply his Parma stats) Dr Salvus 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This should be explained in the prose, not in a weird and confusing stats table. GiantSnowman 12:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
If we were to change the format in the career stats table, we would also have to change the way we display these loans in the infobox for consistency, imo (I don't particularly agree/disagree with any one format btw). Nehme1499 12:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly - the career stats should reflect the infobox (some exceptions, such as where a player has two distinct loan spells in the same season from the same club, which would have 2 lines in the infobox but 1 line in the stats box). GiantSnowman 12:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd do the same that it.wiki does. Believe the various loans are to be explained in the prose. Have a look to the infobox and the tables at the Kulusevski it.wiki article for an example. To indicate he spent half season on loan from Atalanta and the rest on loan from Parma I'd explain it using an efn Dr Salvus 12:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
we are not it.wiki though. GiantSnowman 14:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Infoboxes are meant to reflect / summarise the rest of the article, not determine its content. Spike 'em (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
From a purely statistical point of view, it does not make sense to see different numbers in the infobox compared to the table. Nehme1499 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 it does not make any sense having a table with a non-cronological order either. It's the reason Govvy and I'd like to change its table (and the ones for players who have been loaned to the same team the buying club had bought the player) Dr Salvus 07:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Surajit Sengupta

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, I am reaching out here to see if any of the editors on this project might have some insights on where we could source playing career stats for an Indian footballer, Surajit Sengupta. We had a brief discussion at WP:ITNRD -- details can be seen at WP:ITN/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_Surajit_Sengupta. Greatly appreciate any pointers. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge Arnold Clark Cup -> 2022 Arnold Clark Cup

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Arnold Clark Cup#merger discussion that may interest members of this WikiProject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ashton Gate Stadium

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I was just on the article, but the ownership of the stadium? It's a little confusing, I changed it to Bristol City Holdings Ltd, per the company details. However, there are elements in the history that don't add up for who owns the stadium. I was wondering if they actually own the stadium or if it own by Bristol Council. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The owner of the club is not necessarily the owner of the stadium. GiantSnowman 11:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I saw you remove that, I changed it to operator, there is also the stadium website, on the privacy notice it says Ashton Gate Limited [9]. It seems there are a few companies operating at the venue! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that the company you added is the operator? None. The 'tenants' parameter is sufficient. GiantSnowman 12:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
How about per accounts;[10]
Bristol City Football Club Limited (which operates the professional football team) and Ashton Gate Limited (which operates the stadium facilities).
From looking at the accounts; Ashton Gate Ltd operate the stadium under that company, however Bristol City Holdings Ltd owns the land and holdings with a book value over £53 million. The parent company is Pula Sport Limited. But it seems to be using securities to protect itself from financial incursion and just invests its money into the other subsidiaries. The stadium operator company has a bank loan of £50 million, but the club is protected from the loan due to subsidiary protection. Interesting setup. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't be looking at accounts etc. for this info - WP:OR. GiantSnowman 10:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Public released accounts don't breach WP:OR, they are primary sources of information available to the public! Accounts are primary sources, WP:PRIMARY applies and not WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You mean PRIMARY that is a sub-set or OR, and which says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so"? C'mon. GiantSnowman 10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You can use primary sources for straight up facts, analyse can be done on talk pages, which is what I was doing above! I really don't know why you want to argue over primary facts. I didn't even bother editing that page back even know I gave you the correct information to do so. An admin reverts my two different edits, since you're an admin I thought you would have known better than this. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
These are not 'straight up facts', these are potentially complex business arrangements and you are using Companies House records to try and work out something which you have already got wrong once. Stop - especially when a very quick Google brings up the answer in a secondary source! GiantSnowman 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ashton Gate Ltd does seem like it is the owner of the stadium per the secondary source above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Ashton Gate Ltd is an operating company they don't own the stadium, GiantSnowman is making mistake after mistake now. You two should really read that article carefully. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"The owners of Ashton Gate Stadium have unveiled plans for a new £100million sports and convention centre, with 4,000 capacity venue, four-star hotel and more. Based in South Bristol, Ashton Gate Ltd want the new facility to house the Bristol Flyers basketball club and also be used to attract world-class exhibitions and conferences". That indicates that Ashton Gate Ltd are the owners of Ashton Gate Stadium. GiantSnowman 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
What in that article suggests that they aren't the owners? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It's says the owners of the stadium, then says what the company Ashton Gate Ltd want. That too me is not clear enough, that source and the content is pretty poor. I wouldn't use it. For instance, Tottenham Hotspur is owned by ENIC group, that includes the stadium and all the subsidiaries under it. Pula Sport Limited own Bristol City, the stadium and all the subsidiaries under it. It's simple enough, seriously, I said that earlier above. Govvy (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
As a journalist, if I wrote that, I would 100 per cent mean that Ashton Gate Ltd were the owners of the stadium. You don't just randomly introduce a completely different company from the one you were originally talking about in the second par. I would never start an intro with "The" though, that is amateur. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not "simple enough". We have one source saying that Ashton Gate Ltd own Ashton Gate Stadium, and this source saying it's someone called Steve Lansdown.
Looking at Companies House 'Jon Stephen Lansdown' is a director of Ashton Gate Ltd (see this) and Ashton Gate Ltd have a charge here for 'ashton gate football ground', which means they owe a bank money and that money is secured against the stadium - a mortgage of the stadium, indicating they own it.
Of course we cannot use my research because it is OR, but it seems to show that the sources are correct and Govvy is wrong. GiantSnowman 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox style update

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I was recently alerted to MOS:DATETOPRES

Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982–

We should determine if we want –present or the abbreviated form. Once decided, we should update our templates and either commission a bot or get to work changing the articles in the project. Alternatively, we should get the project to change their minds. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Check this discussion from 2019. Nehme1499 17:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a guideline only - not the law. There is no need to change anything. GiantSnowman 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, almost every sport uses this same convention, so if a change may be needed, this should probably be discussed at a more general location e.g. WT:SPORTS or WP:VPP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It's completely pointless to have a manual of style and then not follow it. I don't see any issue with adding "present" or "pres." to infoboxes for current footballers, it would just mean that a lot of pages would need updating. We might as well make this change on FOOTY articles now that it has been brought to our attention. By all means though, bring it up at WT:SPORTS so other sports can do similar. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: We are not talking about the update date format, rather about having to add "present" in the infobox for current club spells (2019–present instead of 2019–). Nehme1499 20:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Nehme1499, sorry for my misunderstanding, had only read the title... I do not want to see the present. It'd be ugly, useless and would make the info box bigger with no sense Dr Salvus 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument that carries any weight. The MOS was established to ensure consistency across Wikipedia and it tells us that we are wrong in the way we display dates in the infobox. It even provides a solution for situations where writing present out in full could be a problem. So far, there has been no reason put forward to justify why we aren't following the MOS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: We can still avoid following stupid rules per WP:IAR and as GS's said above it's not a law and we're not forced to follow it, can't we? Dr Salvus 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Also the MOS may have been written at some point long ago, but no sports follow that rule (that I have seen). Thus, sports articles are already consistent in my view, so trying to enforce this MOS change would just lead to inconsistency, not consistency. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Joseph - the use of '2022– ' is well established on football articles (and loads of other sports) and it is not an issue. GiantSnowman 08:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Either we are wrong or the MOS is wrong and should be updated. I don't really have a strong preference either way but if consensus here is to go against the MOS then it should be updated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have BOLDly updated the MOS to reflect actual practice in editing. GiantSnowman 16:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And already reverted - this probably needs an RFC to decide whether the MOS needs to change, and if not whether we have to comply. GiantSnowman 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Salvinu Schembri

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi folks. I expanded Salvinu Schembri earlier. It's definitely no longer a stub but what rating would people experienced with Wikipedia:Content assessment propose? Starter, C, B, A? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say start, though given that he was active between the 1940s and 1960s, and information can be quite scarce for that era, I wouldn't be against a C rating. Nehme1499 07:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd advocate for a start rating. A C rating is also conceivable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Eduardo Oliveira

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. How should we disambiguate Eduardo Gonçalves Torres de Oliveira and Eduardo Oliveira dos Santos? They are both known as Eduardo Oliveira (common name), both are Brazilians, and both are currently football managers and former players. However, the former is better known as a football manager and the latter as a football player. What should be done? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Year of birth, if a precise one can be found for Eduardo Gonçalves Torres de Oliveira - 1982 according to this. So you'd move the articles to Eduardo Oliveira (footballer, born 1982) and Eduardo Oliveira (footballer, born 1972); turn the 'Eduardo Oliveira' page into a disambiguation page, and redirect 'Eduardo Oliveira (footballer)' and 'Eduardo Oliveira (football manager)' there. GiantSnowman 07:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman:, I've added the DOB in the article, and I'm going to proceed with the moves. BRDude70 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Good stuff! GiantSnowman 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  Done. Also added tags to disambig both articles in-between them. BRDude70 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Ross (footballer, born 1866)

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Could project colleagues cast an eye over this article please…to my eyes the appearance and goals scored details for various clubs in the infobox, and the details given for his time at those clubs in the “career table” in the article are not the same. In the infobox for example, Man City is shown as 67app 21g but the table adds up to 60app and 20g; similarly the figures for Burnley are different, as are those for Liverpool, and the Preston North End tallies are incomplete, presumably because information on his earliest years has been difficult to locate.

Is there a problem or am I misinterpreting how the calculations are done ?

RossRSmith (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the The Clarets Chronicles (2007) Ross scored 33 goals in 63 apps for Burnley. The table is correct in terms of league goals only (for Burnley at least), but it is missing Ross' goals in the FA Cup and test matches. The page indeed needs some work as for e.g. Man City the infobox has his total number of apps and goals and the table only his league goals, when it should be the other way around. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The infobox figures are the same as listed by ENFA, but the table appears to be sourced from something published in 1988, and I'm guessing more research has been done in the meantime. In the table, Man City are missing their 1901/02 season – 7app 1g, which would make their figures the same as ENFA's – and there are several differences for the other clubs, mainly in goals scored. Incidentally, @WA8MTWAYC: ENFA list 32 goals for Burnley, not 33 (29 league, 2 FA Cup, 1 test match): perhaps that's down to more recent research as well? I could do a standard-format career stats table using the ENFA figures if that would be useful, and we could add notes of any discrepancies with club-based sources? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The "His club's position in the league" column definitely isn't standard and should be removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Struway2, I've double checked the Burnley book and it lists the following stats:
  • 1896–97: 4a, 1g in the league; 3a, 0g in test matches ==> 7a, 1g
  • 1897–98: 27a, 23g in the league; 3a, 1g in the FA Cup; 4a, 1g in test matches ==> 34a, 25g
  • 1898–99: 20a, 6g in the league; 2a, 1g in the FA Cup ==> 22a, 7g (total tally = 63a, 33g)
I don't know which source is correct, but your idea of using notes sounds like a good idea to me. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added a full stats table. As to Burnley, ENFA gives 5 league goals in 1898/99, all in Dec 98: 4 against Wednesday and 1 against Blackburn. Should identify your book's 6th. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
According to the book, Ross also scored 1 against Bolton on 5 November 1898. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
ENFA has that as 2 own goals, by Joe Lee (Bolton's goalkeeper) and Archie Freebairn. Probably nobody knows which is correct... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. The Chronicles book also indicate an own goal by Lee but has given the other goal to Ross. I'll include a note in the table, but it already looks much better than before. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input and comments, and @Struway2: for the table. Article now much better. RossRSmith (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ben Bowditch

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Was trying to clean up the article, after Tottenham, did he join Colchester first or goto Denmark? According to Sky Sports he went to Denmark per [11] , however the colchester coludata has him there after Colchester. So I am confused. Got some sources for his release from Colchester [12], [13], nothing about going to Denmark after that so... Govvy (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

According to this, he was on loan from Colchester between March and May 2004. In this interview, he says he went to Denmark before Cholchester. Nehme1499 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: It's that interview that I found online I put it in the article as a cite earlier! Then the colchester cites, I think they might be only reliable up to an extent. It still seems at odds at the moment! Govvy (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead of 2021–22 UEFA Europa League knockout phase

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion about the lead of the article. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Players who have played for the reserve team but haven't ever for the youth sectors nor for the first team

Latest comment: 2 years ago73 comments11 people in discussion

We generally put categories such as "Category:X team players" for players who have played either/both for the youth sector and/or for the first team but I can't really understand the reason we never do the same with players who have only played for the reserve team. In my opinion we should put the category for players who have been registred for the team (regardless if it was the first team, the reserve team or the youth team). For example, the category Category:Juventus F.C. players should be inserted in Emanuele Pecorino although he hasn't ever played for the youth sector nor for the first team. Dr Salvus 21:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But he is categorised under Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players which is a child category of Category:Juventus F.C. players. --SuperJew (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
If a player has only played for the B team (not the youth team, not the senior team) then they should not be categorised in the 'parent' category. GiantSnowman 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I could understand that playing for a B team gets the B team category not A team category, but then why does playing for the youth team get the A team category as opposed to a separate youth category? Basically the rule now is C=A but B≠A, meanwhile B is closer to A than C in the stepladder. I saw a recent CfD where there was a category for the youth team that was voted for delete and all the players moved to the A team category (and a separate B team category existed). RedPatch (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I can only agree with RP. The actual format doesn't make sense. If a player has been registered to a team they should be put in the main category. If a player has played for the reserve team they should be put both in the main category and in the reserve team category Dr Salvus 23:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Having come across it with the Spanish system a few times I also agree it doesn't make a huge amount of sense, but I don't have any strong view towards adding both categories, nor any useful alternative ideas. Crowsus (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Would it be a matter of creating a separate subcategory for senior competitions, like Category:La Liga players of _____ and Category:Coppa Italia players of _____. That way, an U23 player isn’t in the same category as a senior player? Or am I misunderstanding the issue here? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The U23 team of Juventus is a team that is playing in the Serie C. It's similar to Barcelona B or Real Madrid Castilla. Nehme1499 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear (because I was really unclear earlier), I'm suggesting turning Category:_____ F.C. players categories into container categories, with no articles, just subcategories. So this is how it would work for Juventus:
With this recategorizing, the main Juventus F.C. players would be empty and all players should be under one or more subcategories.
As a note, having the women's players cat be a subcat of the main category is even more illogical IMO. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron 3030: No, I wouldn't. This is very confusing, TBH. Youth career is nothing close to a senior one. Several players may represent Juventus at youth level, but only a few of them play for the under-23 team, and fewer play for the first team. I don't see the actual advantage of having the category for players who only featured in the youth sides, when the normal reader would actually search for first-team players in that category. BRDude70 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree, but what constitutes a senior team player? A youth player who has been called up to the bench of a senior team match, or someone who has actually made an appearance? If it's the former, it creates an inconsistency with the lack of the senior team in the infobox. If it's the latter, it's inconsistent with 3rd-choice GKs who have never featured for the club (but who would still have the senior team category). Nehme1499 15:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that the U23 and women's categories are subcats of the Juventus players category. The way Wikipedia categories work, a member of a subcategory is inherently a member of the parent category. That means that someone like Matías Soulé, who has appeared for both the senior and U23 side, should technically only be in the U23 subcat, because an article should be placed in the most specific category. Or someone like Julia Grosso is conferred the same status of "Juventus F.C. player" because she's placed in a subcategory of a parent category that contains all the senior men's players.
I guess what I'm saying is that the U23 and women's categories should not be subcategories of the senior men's category. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Nehme1499: I'd definitely say the second one. Generally, 3rd choice GKs are young players who don't even have an article yet, or are players clearly signed for the first team (such as Scott Carson and Richard Wright (footballer), who signed for City clearly to be in the first team, never related to youth or B-sides), who would never have any link to youth or reserve teams. @Adeletron 3030: You're miles away from the point, mate. From what I could gather, the main issue is having (or not) youth or B-team players categorized in the main category. All of these cats would be under the main category, and this approach is not wrong, but the attempt for a consensus here is what categories should be placed in a player article, not the structure of categories per se. BRDude70 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don't like seeing players categorized for a team if they've only played in their youth sector. So, I'd have two suggestions
1. Each category called "X F.C. players" would have subcategories in which we put players who have played for the youth, another one which has players who have played in the B team and another in which we insert players who have played for the first team.
2. We'd do what I've said above but we'd not create the category concerning the players who have played in the youth sector Dr Salvus 09:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Would this be put in place for all countries or only those where the B team plays in the "main" league system? Would we expect to see categories like (picking one at random) Category:Darlington F.C. Reserves players? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, it'd be put for all countries Dr Salvus 09:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, so in England reliable appearances/goals data for the reserve team leagues is almost completely non-existent, so it would be very hard to confirm whether or not a player with 0 first team appearances actually played for the reserves. So if we had a player we know was definitely on the books of a club (as an adult, not a youth) and didn't play for the first team (eg Anthony Scaramozzino at my club, Gillingham) but we can't confirm if he actually played for the reserves, how would we categorise him? Not put him into any player category related to that club at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, It is very strange there are no English reliable sources for reserve leagues. It might be better (but I'm not sure) to categorise players we're sure that have played for the reserve team but on the other hand we'd have lots of incomplete categories Dr Salvus 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr Salvus it's because for decades basically nobody has cared about reserve team football. I just had a glance at some of my Gillingham programmes from the 1990s and although they include (very) brief reports on reserve team games they don't include any line-ups/appearance data - and that's in the club's own programmes! So if the club didn't care enough to provide this information, it's hard to imagine it was captured anywhere else..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, in Italy instead there's only a B team (Juventus U23) and they play in a professional league (the Serie C, which is in the "main" system) and we have a lot of stats concerning them. The same can also be found even for youth teams (some websites provide results and squads also for the under-15s team)! This led me think there are enough stats for English youth and reserves leagues. Dr Salvus 10:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr Salvus take my word for it, there definitely aren't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ChrisTheDude: Don't worry, I trust you. Let's discuss to find a solution for this problem. Would it be a problem if we had incomplete categories? Dr Salvus 11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I'd say that English football is definitely not a good example for reserve teams here. We are using Juventus U23, which plays in the league system, same as most of the Spanish reserve teams, while English reserve teams have their own reserve league, separated from the league structure. BRDude70 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

In order to get a WP:CON, shall we do a pool? I believe a pool would be more direct and helpfull

I'd suggest:

  1. Keeping the current format (putting in the main category all players who have played for youth sector/first team and putting the players who have played for the category reserved for them)
  2. Creating subcategories for players such as: Templatonia F.C. (first team, or something like it) players, Templatonia F.C. Reserve players, Templatonia F.C. Youth Sector players and Templatonia F.C. (women) players. The main category would only be composed by subcategories
  3. Not using Youth Sector categories at all
  4. Not creating Youth Sector nor Reserve teams categories at all
  5. Putting all players who have been registred for the team in the main category
  6. Creating reserve team categories only if they play in the main league system
  7. Not putting players who have only played for the youth team in the main category

Btw, the option I prefer is Option 2. If we change the format, it may be better to put such categories only into players' page who have played an official match. Dr Salvus 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've created two new options. I do believe we should not use the current format. I do not agree with the options 1, 3 and 4. The other ones go well. Dr Salvus 21:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 2 I don't think it's a problem that we don't have good sourcing for English reserve matches — we can just not have reserve player categories for English clubs (I think most English clubs loan out their fringe players anyway). A devil's advocate question for @Dr Salvus: for "first team" categories, would we use the squad lists submitted to the league or use matchday squads? For example, Curtis Jones (footballer) is not on Liverpool's 24-man Premier League squad because he's a U21 player, but he's obviously part of the first team. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A player who has played over 60 first team matches is clearly a first team player, irrespective of this new-fangled concept of "official league squads" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but (again, looking at Liverpool's squad) Tyler Morton and Kaide Gordon have both registered Premier League starts and I don't think I'd consider them first team players. Yet as far as their squad status is concerned, they're no different from Curtis Jones, a bona fide first team player. And it's pretty common for clubs to field teenagers with squad numbers in the 50s and 60s in late-season dead rubber matches just to give them experience. I'm not sure if they're really first team players, but I'm fine with including them in the first team category. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron3030: Have they ever played for the first team? If so, they are (or I'd consider them as) part of the squad Dr Salvus 22:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron3030: - how I interpret the proposed categories is that they would be: one for players who have played for the first team / one for players who have only played for the reserves / one for players who have only played for the youth team. So a player with first team experience would go in the first team category irrespective of judgement calls about whether they are/were a "real" first team player...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, no. I've suggested to create a category with players who have played for a youth team / another with players who have played for the reserve team and another with players who have played for the first team. If a player has for example played both in the first team and in the Youth team, it should be put in both categories. Dr Salvus 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Voting Option 4, I don't see the value in youth/reserve categories. The only exception are reserve teams that play in senior/professional leagues (like in France and Portugal), and the reserves should have their own categories separate from the main team.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ortizesp: You are actually voting for option 3 then. BRDude70 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Options 1 or 5 - and absolutely not 2. I don't care what you do, as long as you do not create a whole glut of 'youth' categories, as that will be carnage. I see no problems with including youth players in the parent category, which is what we currently do. GiantSnowman 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, would you like to see Reserve teams categories? Dr Salvus 20:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
If the reserve team plays in the same league system as the parent club (e.g. like in Spain or Netherlands) and we have a separate article for the reserve team, then yes. Otherwise no. GiantSnowman 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman For what it's worth, U21 teams of Premier League teams compete in the EFL Trophy against senior teams of lower-division clubs. It's not quite the same as youth and B-teams that play in lower divisions, but it's somewhat similar. So maybe we only have youth and reserve team categories only if those teams enter A-team competitions? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron 3030 I do not agree. They're different leagues and I think it doesn't matter. We've also got no information (as ChrisTheDude's said above) concerning reserve teams player as I can understand by reading the text above Dr Salvus 21:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus I'm not sure where we actually disagree? We don't need to create reserve team categories because they're not notable enough to have significant coverage. On the other hand, Premier League U21 teams do receive significant coverage by competing the Papa John's Trophy, so it's worthwhile to have separate categories. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
They're not enough notable in England but in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal it does look they're notable. Are U21 teams considered reserves or youth teams in England? I'm not used to see U21 teams (Italy has lots of U19 teams and then one U23 team but no U21 teams). If they're reserves, it may be worth the effort. Dr Salvus 21:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron 3030:, I've changed my mind. If U21 teams are reserve teams, I'd create their categories as they play the EFL Trophy with main league teams Dr Salvus 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about an Option 6 - For teams who have "senior reserve teams" (i.e. FC Barcelona B, Paris Saint-Germain F.C. B), that actually play in a senior league system, we include the reserve team cat for those who appeared for the B-side. For those who appeared in the first team once or more, they are available for having the first team cat. For other countries where the reserve teams are in a separate league, only the main cat is needed. Youth spells are not considered "worthy" enough for having a cat, aside from cats from teams which are only focused on youth football (i.e. CF Damm - Category:CF Damm players). I would go for that or something like that. BRDude70 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@BrazilianDude70 I agree. Now, I'll add it to the options Dr Salvus 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman and @Ortizesp; maybe, you should change your vote and vote the sixth option as I've changed the options. Dr Salvus 21:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I vote 6.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I am fine with 6 as well. This is what we already do though! GiantSnowman 22:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, no. The option 6 is different from what we actually do. The difference is that we'd insert players who have only played in the reserve team in both main and reserve team category (we actually add him only in the reserve team category) Dr Salvus 22:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus:, I think you read it wrong, or I wasn't clear in my explanation. The difference from what we do is that we wouldn't add the first team cat for players who only featured in the youth or reserve teams... BRDude70 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
BrazilianDude70, sorry. English isn't my first language. Feel free to edit the options in the pool Dr Salvus 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
So if option 6 were picked, what would happen to players with only youth football at certain clubs? Taking Keita Baldé as an example, he played for Damm (5 seasons from the age of 5, apparently), Barcelona (5 seasons) and Cornellà (2 seasons) at youth level and at the moment has categories referring to all three of those clubs. Would Barcelona and Cornellà be removed, but youth-only Damm remain? That would be a somewhat incomplete reflection of his timeline. I know it is a busier example than most, and his youth trajectory had more impact on his senior career than most, but due to that it was the first player that came to mind. Crowsus (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Crowsus No, these categories would be kept. The only difference between the option 1 and the option 6 is that a player who has only played in the reserves team would be included both in the first and reserve teams categories Dr Salvus 06:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
From what I can see above, it has also not been confirmed / consensus reached as to what age a player ceases being a youth player and becomes a senior reserve player, which would now be important as an marker for when they get the XXX F.C. players category - there will be dozens/hundreds of players in the 20-22 age bracket who are in the 'Under-23' group and nowhere near the first team, abs some editors may then argue these are youth players, so it would be good to have it clarified that they are not; this also potentially affects players going out on loans at 17-19, then leaving the parent club: if we don't add youth stage categories, they will never have the category of the club which loaned them out. We could add the club cat to better reflect that of course, but they would actually have been no nearer to representing the first team than a colleague who stayed put in the academy and got released at the same point, so seems like an imbalance. Crowsus (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
If the team played in the main league, I wouldn't consider it as a youth team. I'd consider as youth team if it didn't play in the main league system Dr Salvus 06:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
OK but then we are into the murky waters of WP:V. The thing is, it can look a bit crazy at times to see players who had a season with a club as a 12-year-old get 'equal billing' in the category as a player with 200 senior appearances for that club, but it can be verified that both were attached to that club. Particularly with English football, there is a lot of fluidity between youth and reserve, and reserve and senior players. Some clubs have good record keeping over who is in what group, others do not. It would be well into the realm of WP:OR for us to decide when they should get a Category:Liverpool F.C. reserve team players, as I think a couple of the above options are proposing. So I would be very much against that. Crowsus (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 7 (I think?): main-team players in the main category, B team players (who play in the same league system as the main team) in the B team category. Youth players don't need to be categorized into the main category imo (and especially doesn't need a separate category). Nehme1499 08:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 would you include a player who has only played in the B team in both reserve and parent category? Dr Salvus 08:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No. Senior strictly in the senior cat, reserve strictly in the reserve cat. Nehme1499 08:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499, maybe you should vote the seventh option. The third one says that a player who has only played for the youth sector would be included in the main category. Dr Salvus 08:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the main category has always been used for any player who is on the club's books, even at youth level. – PeeJay 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@PeeJay we're not referring to youth teams but to reserve teams Dr Salvus 10:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What's your point? A player has to be registered with a club to play for any of their teams, whether senior, reserve or youth, hence they would all go in the main category. – PeeJay 10:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@PeeJay I must've been confused Dr Salvus 11:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we need to complicate things. As far as I am aware the current set-up is that we have a single category per club, and into that we put everyone who was with that club as a player, be that as a youth or an adult. I really don't see why we would need separate categories for first team players and reserves - it's all the same club...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude if you believe they're not needed, I'd suggest to vote the third option. I think your opinion is agreeable Dr Salvus 11:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we have different definitions of reserves. (As things currently work) yes, Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy players should be part of Category:Manchester United F.C. players. No, Juventus F.C. Under-23 players (who play in the senior pyramid) should not be part of Category:Juventus F.C. players. If it were for me, even Man U reserves shouldn't be part of the senior cat. Nehme1499 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with that. Juventus Under-23 players are still Juventus players, even if their only appearances are for the Under-23 side. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in both categories. – PeeJay 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Because Juventus U23 players have not played with the Juventus team. Anyway, the U23 category is a subcat of the Juventus category, so I see no reason for including a player in both. 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with PJ. I can accept all the options I've suggested above but I cannot stand seeing a player who has only played for the B team not being included in the main cat and seeing that a player who has only played for the youth team being categorised in the main cat Dr Salvus 14:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I would have neither in the main cat. Nehme1499 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What Nehme's said above is acceptable, I'd forgot that he doesn't want to see young players categorised (as I can understand and can agree). Dr Salvus 14:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this discussion from the archive, as I feel we haven't reached a consensus yet. Does anyone else have different opinions? Nehme1499 21:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:X team squad

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Should these templates include players who have been called up in the season without being fielded? Dr Salvus 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Nehme1499 21:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 see Template:Juventus F.C. squad. Marco Raina was called up by Allegri for the match against Genoa without being fielded. Should he be included in the template? I'd added him to the template, but my edit has been reverted by another user. Dr Salvus 21:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I think we should include all first-team players (whether they played or not), and youth/U23 players who have made at least an appearance. Nehme1499 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I instead think, we should include all players who have been called up by the first team coach (wheter they're in the first team or not) in the current season. Dr Salvus 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If a player has been given a squad number and called up to a match squad, include them. GiantSnowman 21:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: courtesy ping. Btw, I'm indifferent between the two options. Nehme1499 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
My personal thought is that the template squad has to match with this section for istance, which includes all the players from first squad source and those with at least one appearance made.--Island92 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone else reply here, please? Dr Salvus 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I usually include all players in the official squad per the club, plus all players that have articles and have played in the current season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Vaurie‎ (talk • contribs)
I have always followed the method described by user:GiantSnowman (all players who have been given a squad number and called up to a match day squad) but recently had this level of detail removed by @EchetusXe: on Template:Rotherham United F.C. squad. Gricehead (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
None of those players are included in the squad list on the Rotherham United article. EchetusXe 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
EchetusXe, doesn't matter. They should be included both in the article and in the Template. Dr Salvus 06:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Well Gricehead should put them in both the article and in the template then, rather than put them solely in the template and complain when I remove them from the template for being out of sync with the squad list. 90% of the time the article page is up to date whilst the template is out of date. EchetusXe 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree both squad list and template should match. GiantSnowman 10:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
They are included in the squad list of 2021–22 Rotherham United F.C. season. For once I must have forgot to sync up the main article squad list. Please forgive the oversight. Gricehead (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
So, what do we do? I think we should decide. Dr Salvus 10:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Women's Supercoppa Italiana

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The competition has the same Supercopa de España format and it's also played in January of the following year (as Supercopa does). Should we use 20xx-yy year format or 20xx year format to refer to the Women's Supercoppa Italiana seasons? I'm asking as @Cozy1298 uses 2021 format which I believe it's wrong and to avoid to be blocked for edit war Dr Salvus 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The FIGC's (not-fully updated) honours section list the 2020–21 Supercoppa Italiana (women) as "2020" ([14]). It doesn't matter how the format was (whether it was played in December 2020 or January 2021), rather how the competition itself was branded (or how it was commonly known by sources). Nehme1499 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Nehme1499, you may be right but why do we call the Spanish Supercup with 20xx–yy format? This season is for example known as 2022 (look at the es.wiki article) in Spain Dr Salvus 14:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Each country may call its own competition in its own way. We don't necessarily have to have consistency with the naming format. Nehme1499 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Nehme1499, so I was wrong.... I'll revert my edits Dr Salvus 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would wait to see what others think. Nehme1499 14:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Fully agree with what Nehme1499 said avobe. Nobody classify Supercoppa Italiana (women) as 'XX-YY' season except Dr Salvus. Stop revert all page as your own standard. even you've acknowleged you were wrong. Cozy 1298 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have protected Juventus F.C. (women) indefinitely so that nobody can edit it other than admins until this matter is resolved. Next time anyone edits in a similar manner at any other article will result in a block. Discuss it and let me know when you've reached agreement - or ask an admin to make a decision on consensus if you cannot even do that. GiantSnowman 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thank you. Cozy1298 has also edit warred at Supercoppa Italiana (women), 2020–21 Supercoppa Italiana (women) and 2021–22 Supercoppa Italiana (women), it may be good protect them from further reverts Dr Salvus 16:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the same level of disruption at those articles - but, again, if either of you (@Cozy1298 and Dr Salvus: edit those articles prior to consensus being agreed you will be blocked for edit warring, OK? GiantSnowman 16:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

New list type. Any thoughts?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all, I saw in the new pages feed List of players provided by clubs to Brazil national football team at the FIFA World Cup and I don't think that I've seen a list of this type before. What are people's thoughts? I can see that Globo did cover this topic for Brazil. Is there potential for doing this sort of list for England, France etc. and is there likely to be enough to cover WP:GNG? Is the topic likely to be inherently notable (as with e.g. list of hat-tricks, list of players born abroad)? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:NOSTATS apply, I really don't see how it qualifies as a encyclopaedic list. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Consider merging basic content into Brazil at the FIFA World Cup and then redirect/delete. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this being a possible NOTSTATS case. I've taken it to AfD to establish consensus. It looks like Brazil at the FIFA World Cup already has a significant chunk of the info there anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I decided to create this article separately so as not to overload Brazil at the World Cup, and because there is a parallel at pt.wiki. I imagine the biggest problem was the name, not with the information itself. Svartner (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League Group Stage tables

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the pages about the seasons of the Europa League, we colour the row of teams placed at the third place with yellow. I think the same should be done at UEFA Champions League table for consistency with the Europa League which colours with yellow the teams who relegate to the Conference League Dr Salvus 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The different colour represent different levels of competition, changing them would imply that the Conference League was on the same standing as the Europa League when it's actually a level below. The details for which colour should be used in these tables is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season#Table formatting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[15] - IP is repeatedly inserting seemingly random apps/goals numbers for Kilmarnock players, please be advised...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Cheers, Number 57 16:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ignacio Giampaoli - notability?

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I really don't know enough about a lot of the places he's played, but Ignacio Giampaoli signed a pre-contract deal with Cefn Druids in the Cymru Premier in December 2021, but has not signed for them as far as I can see. He has an article but wondering if he meets GNG or WFOOTY - lots of wordage but can't help thinking not much substance in terms of playing in a full professional league. Any advice on if worth nominating for deletion or can it be cleaned up and expanded? Zanoni (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he passes WP:FOOTY. The only FPL team in his infobox (unless I missed one) is LA Galaxy II. It says he made 1 appearance but I can't find any record of that. Soccerway and some other sites have good records for that and it doesn't list him on the roster at all. His LinkedIn page says he was with LAG2 for preseason. So he may have played in a friendly, but not in a FPL match. This can probably be taken to AFD. RedPatch (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Given this source, he confirms he was at LAGII for a two-week pre-season trial only. So he made no FPL appearances. I've removed it from the infobox. RedPatch (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that the article was created by someone with very few other edits (except to this page), who also uploaded a professional photo of Giampaoli as their own work, I expect there's some sort of COI involved. Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably not notable, but I've tidied it up anyway (aesthetics, rather than the more analytical stuff others have done to actually work out what's true). Crowsus (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I set up the AFD page here. RedPatch (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - my hunch was it would fail both, but good to check Zanoni (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rescheduled league matches rounds

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

On season pages, taking 2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, for the league games that got postponed, should the round number stay the same? It seems some of the editors are changing the round numbers of games, it's it harder to work out when that game was postponed, as that round seem to disappear. I liked seeing that data before! I was wondering whats the best way to handle the information. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally keep the round number the same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
would be better to just count it as the round it's actually played. so, match 10 is postponed so match 11 is now match 10. then what was match 10 now takes place in match 27, so list it as match 27. doing otherwise is confusing, especially in a "position by round" section. say your team were 15th in the 10th round and the match was postponed. now by the time they play the match, theyve had a crazy run and are now first. but, if you go with the "rounds" being what they were announced day one youd have it like this: round 9: 10th round 10: 1st, round 11: 10th. thats just silly and makes it seem like they changed 9 places twice because of one/two matches. it should be based on matches actually played. "the 10th league match of the season was against chelsea", etc. its also not really counfusing, just have two entries for the match one when it was postoned without a round number and one when it was played with a round number. its why the postponed option even exists in the first place.Muur (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
What Muur (talk · contribs) said. Kante4 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Another +1. Retrofitting rearranged match results / positions into a list is both inaccurate and confusing. Spike 'em (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Position by Round is analytical data and in my view wikipedia should avoid that. WP:NOTLAB ? Govvy (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree it can be confusing, surely it's easier to just say they were in x position after whatever game it happens to be? Any additional context can be added in prose which many of these articles are sorely lacking.
Tbf Govvy, I was also under the impression that position/results by round tables shouldn't be included in these articles (especially because you can include all of that information in the results list itself). I thought WP:SYNTH also applied because, particularly with postponed games, it can sometimes be difficult to work out what should be displayed in these tables. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy See how I managed this issue last season for Manchester City Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy See how I managed this issue last season for Manchester City (link corrected) Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Assists parameter in Template fb si player / header

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Would it be considered beneficial to have assists parameters added to these templates to record the numbers of assists made by players for their club's to compliment the appearances and goals statistics? Ratchet8865 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming view is that assists are not a stat worth recording, as there is no agreed definition, it is impossible to source for the majority of players, and where it is recorded different sources give different numbers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that historically there is a problem with consistency and availability of data from before around 2013, but since then many leagues and associations have published official assists stats for their competitions (e.g. Premier League, UEFA) which are also collated by reliable stat sites like soccerbase or fbref. So in time, we should be able to source reliable data for currently active players. Ratchet8865 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
No assists. It should only be goals, assists are not goals. We should be removing rubbish like yellow cards from there, rather than adding more things to clutter it up even more. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
We're also not a collection of stats. Goals are just fine. (WP:NOTSTATS) Dr Salvus 10:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I have to confess that I have never worked with that template and am not familiar with it, but looking at it now the amount of cruft in it is a bit much IMO. Looking at 2006–07_FC_Barcelona_season#Squad_information, why is it relevant to the article on that season that Messi was on a contract with an end date of 2014 or that Marquez had cost 5M when signed three years earlier? I don't see how either of those is in any way relevant to their contribution to that particular season....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
There's so much wrong with that. The contract length, cost are irrelevant. Age? When is this measured? The source for that one specifically states it sources Wikipedia, which isn't even slightly ok. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zsombor Senko

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

His contract is going to end on 30 June. If he neither extends his contract nor play s another game for Juve U23, should we write in the info box 2021–2022 (next to "Juventus U23") or only 2021 (he only played a match in the previous season)? Dr Salvus 09:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If he was also called up in 2022, then 2021–2022. Nehme1499 11:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 Hadn't we decided that we'd considerate the caps and not the call ups? Dr Salvus 11:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Not for club players! GiantSnowman 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: I think that logic is for the starting year, not the ending one (I don't necessarily agree with it, I'd go with call-ups for both starting and ending years for clubs). Nehme1499 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I hope he's wearing a really baggy shirt in his infobox photo and that he isn't actually that shape! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, I've had a look at some sites and he's only 78 kg. Dr Salvus 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Divisional movements table

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@Pallone aerostatico: added a divisional movements table to A.C. Monza: I reverted as it's not standard per the MOS, it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE and unsourced. I reverted it. Today, Modoetia magni added it back, on the basis that it's "interesting". I reverted, once again explaining why it shouldn't be in the article, and he is calling me disruptive as I "don't decide for the community". Can someone please deal with this, as I've already reverted 4 times. Nehme1499 00:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

They have now sent me a template warning... (WP:DTR). Nehme1499 00:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Obviously divisional movements for a football club are not “indiscriminate” facts. For the source, I’ve just resolved the problem. --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Just because you find some stats interesting doesn't mean it should stay on an encyclopaedia. Nehme1499 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
How can you consider divisional movements for a football club an irrelevant statistic?? FC Zorya Luhansk as a League and Cup history section: why don’t you remove it? --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:OBLIGATION, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nehme1499 00:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Thank not criticize. --Modoetia magni (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Parts and aspects of articles may and should be criticized, but editors should not be. Nehme1499 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Remember, if things don't go your way, it's not the end of the world.--Modoetia magni (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Just looked at it and I don't understand what that table is telling me? --dashiellx (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the table should or shouldn't be in the article, but as it is right now it is quite unclear. "Promotions" and "Relegations" mean promotions and relegations to or from that league? What is the cross next to 2015? I would also remove the green and red arrows as redundant decoration. I also think this information could be better represented as a graph. --SuperJew (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that I'm looking to nominate A.C. Monza for GA/FA, I'd rather not have crufty tables in the article. If it should be kept, at least it should be formatted some other way. Does anyone else have other opinions? Nehme1499 20:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Naturalised association football players by nationality

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

What's the scope of this category? Is it for footballers who happened to have gained a certain citizenship via naturalisation (without necessarily a specific sporting purpose), or is it for footballers who have gained nationality for the purpose of representing a national team? If it's the first case, I don't see the significance of merging "footballers" with "gaining citizenship via naturalisation" in a category. If it's the latter, the category should be renamed. Nehme1499 22:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd assume the same as List of naturalized international footballers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Is that page even worth while - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality is essentially the same thing. I don't think we need article or category. GiantSnowman 22:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think it fits WP:LISTN and isn't a defining category. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Players with dual nationality is just an indiscriminate list of footballers who have more than one nationality. Naturalized international footballers are relatively notable, as it's specific to players who obtained citizenship with the sole purpose of representing a national team (such as Elkeson). Nehme1499 22:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
If it is notable, where are the sources talking about them as a group? That's what we require for standalone lists. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
See these articles, for example: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Nehme1499 22:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Club season articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I don't usually look at these articles, but found myself at 2021–22 Liverpool F.C. season. Can I get some agreement that the "player of the month" for the individual clubs is not notable? In addition, that we shouldn't have tables with customised colours for each club? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as the colours don't violate MOS:ACCESS, it's fine imo. Player of the month is ok, I think. It's relatively notable to the specific season. If anything, I would remove the disciplinary record table. Nehme1499 22:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
As this is "Awarded monthly to the player that was chosen by fans voting on Liverpoolfc.com" is this even notable? --dashiellx (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Thing is, why aren't the colours for the tables uniform across the articles. I don't see how fan voting is in any way notable.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Doherty (footballer, born 1992) move conversation

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Even know it looks a clear cut close, BarrelProof closed the conversation even know he voted in it, also Iggy the Swan gave no clear indication he was withdrawing the conversation. This is a terrible close, shouldn't someone else sort it out???? Govvy (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There was unanimous opposition to that RM and the proponent then appeared to withdraw their proposal. Closing it was merely a formality in that situation. If I misread what the proponent said, or if anyone else thinks the closure was not adequately justified, they can let me know and I'll happily undo the close. It may also be worth observing that the proponent of that RM, Iggy the Swan, also expressed support for the RM at Talk:Matt Doherty Sr.#Requested move 2 March 2022, which makes it even more clear that they now recognize and agree with the need for disambiguation of the title of Matt Doherty (footballer, born 1992). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably not the wisest close. I'd be happy to mediate if Iggy the Swan wants to reopen Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Just conflict of interest and WP:CLOSE which tells us a non-partisan person who hasn't taken part in the conversation should close a conversation. I hope you don't close that new move request you started. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks, I had no indication on withdrawing this conversation or indeed asking someone to close it just one day and 2 hours after starting the discussion myself. That closure should happen around 7 days after I started that (or may) so I agree this closure is terrible based on how soon that happened. The comment I gave out yesterday made me realise that Matt Doherty (footballer) is pdab because of the number of Matt Dohertys there are on Wikipedia. I did not forecast that premature closure. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Reopened as requested. Sorry for the misinterpretation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have requested confirmation from the nominator that the requested move is indeed being withdrawn before performing a non-admin closure. If the nomination is indeed withdrawn, I will close it. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Question on national team article titles

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are the men's football teams titled national football team but women's are titled women's national football team? I noticed this was inconsistent with some other sports on wiki and was wondering why. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, which is why we also have United States men's national soccer team for example. Nehme1499 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

name format of drafts

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that all the articles in Category:National Women's Soccer League drafts and also the parent article NWSL Draft are formatted with all the words capitalised. Should it be changed that words like draft, college, and expansion should be formatted with a lowercase first letter? --SuperJew (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft is part of the name, so I would say no. Similar to how we have "Final" not "final" in article names e.g. FA Cup Final, as it's part of the name. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Roberto Carlos

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In bizarre circumstances, Roberto Carlos played today for a pub team in Shropshire. The game itself was a friendly, but IPs keep adding it to his infobox stats, even going so far as to repeatedly delete the hidden note saying that infobox stats are league only. Just a heads-up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Add it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection RedPatch (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

End year for international appearances

Latest comment: 2 years ago146 comments23 people in discussion

I know there are prior discussions and sorry for bringing it up again, but I don't really know what the consensus is. And I'm wondering if there should be official MOS (or is there an official WP:FOOTY MOS on this?).

So here's the deal:

  1. I added the end year to Dele Alli's England appearance and tweaked the introduction because he hasn't appeared for England since the 2018–19 UEFA Nations League semis in June 2019. That's more than 2.5 years ago. By any reasonable measure, he's not a "current" England player.
  2. Haklam1218 unclosed the international years, with the edit summary: Wrong. He does not retire from international football and you won’t know if he will get a call-up again.
  3. Most us here have been editing long enough to know that international retirement is, at most, an unofficial declaration, and it's my understanding that if a player hasn't played internationally. for 1-2 years, we can safely add an end date, so I reverted the edit, stating as much in the edit summary.
  4. Heklam1218 re-removed the year with the edit summary: No. I have asked the community board before. You can go and raise your question again.. I think by "community board", the user means this forum, so here I am.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me:

  • Alli has not played internationally for two full calendar years, over two and a half years. In that time, he's missed the end of Euro 2020 qualifying and all of World Cup 2022 qualifying and barring a miraculous return to form, he'll probably miss the World Cup in Qatar as well.
  • Like I said above, "international retirement" isn't actually something we should take seriously. Messi and Zlatan have both returned from multiple international retirements. There are no official papers to sign. There is no formal international retirement process. It's just a polite request to the federation asking not to be considered for selection.
  • More importantly, the vast majority of international players don't retire from their national teams. They just stop getting called up. It's an unreasonable standard to wait for a player to declare their unwillingness to play for the national team, when the majority of players get maybe only a handful of caps.
  • It's more helpful to readers to know that Alli's 37 appearances for England came between 2015 and 2019, than to come away with the impression that he's actively adding to that number.
  • Conversely, a reasonable reader isn't going to look at "2015-2019" and think, "Ah, that Dele Alli, he'll never play for England again."
  • It's Wikipedia. If he wins another cap, it takes less than a minute to delete "-2019".

Anyway, here's my proposal:

  • A player's international years should be closed if:
  • The player has not played for the national team for 2 years, an entire calendar year, or an entire season (July-June for a UEFA-based player)

and

  • The player has not been named to the national team squad for an international match window or a FIFA/confederation tournament in the last 12 months.

Support? Oppose? Agree in principle but disagree on the criteria? Whatever we land on, I think it's worth having a set standard for WP:FOOTY. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on mate. If you insist on 2015-2019 it gives people the wrong impression that Alli has retired from playing international football. And I recall that this topic has been discussed before so why raise this up again and again? Haklam1218 (talk 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Comment: If a player does not play internationally for a bunch of years, I would remove the "plays for Team X and the XX national team" from intro (leaving the team only), but I would definitely not "close" his/hers international years. The international retirement is not actually a thing to be taken that informally since you brought up two examples of players who announced their international retirement and later backed down, when a bunch of others actually announced it and never played for their NTs again. I do agree with Hallam on this, adding the "–2019" would give more of an impression that "he would not play for England anymore" rather than "he played for England until that year". BRDude70 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Haklam1218 @BrazilianDude70 As I said above, "retired from playing international football" isn't a thing that actually happens. You could look at it two ways:
  • No one actually retires from international football. Most players stop getting selected. A very lucky few players can ask not to be selected, but even then, it's neither permanent nor official. It's not a really useful or realistic criterion for labeling a player's international years. And I know I only named Messi and Zlatan, but there's also Zidane, Larsson, Buffon, Makelele — I could keep going.
-or-
  • Outside of international matchday windows and tournaments, there is no such thing as a "current" international player. Unlike club football, where a player has an ongoing contract to play for a team, being part of a national team. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I will honestly not waste time discussing a thing that has been widely discussed a few years back and a consensus was reached twice. It's up to you to respect the actual consensus, because a lot of good arguments against yours have been placed in the past discussions. Cheers, BRDude70 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know that there's a consensus, when I found this thread from 2018. Sure, I'll respect consensus, consensus can change. You pointed me to two threads, both from 2010, but the question seems to keep coming up, so clearly the consensus isn't that firm. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And yes, there was already a major discussion over this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 41#End dates on international careers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 43#International Years again. Maybe it's a case of adding the formal consensus at WP:WPFCONSENSUS. BRDude70 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, though I thought there were more recent discussions. Those were both from over 11 years ago (not that old discussions aren't worth looking at). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that there should be a set standard. In my mind it would be until the player retires or announces that he's retired internationally but if people are looking to end a player's international career due to inactivity then I think that it shouldn't be before a full World Cup cycle is complete, therefore four years, otherwise Pacific islanders would be retired from international football too regularly due to the scarcity in their matches. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • The notion that we cannot add an end year until a player formally announces his international retirement is frankly ridiculous, because, as Adeletron notes, 99.9999999% of players never announce such a thing. Alli is only 25, he could easily play professionally for another 7 or 8 years and it's highly unlikely he will ever formally announce his international retirement, so are we going to leave his international career "ongoing" until potentially 2030, more than 10 years after his last cap? Should we leave Fraizer Campbell's "ongoing" because he has never officially announced his international retirement? We have to draw the line somewhere....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
How about having the international period having a start year and end year, regardless of when last played (even a player who played yesterday)? Such as is done on List of England international footballers and such. I also wonder if it should be per call-up to squad and not actually playing. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Though I doubt this would get consensus, this makes sense the most for me. We don't have to set an arbitrary limit on how long we keep the end year open or wait for an international retirement announcement that, for almost all players, never comes. It's also a better reflection of how international football works. It's not a continuous membership like with a club team — your membership begins and ends with each international window.
And I can go with using the most recent call-up date and not the most recent appearance. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Once a player has officially retired from playing football his international career is over at the sametime thus he is definitely out of the international picture. Let’s take an example, Stekelenburg got omitted from international squad for 3 years, 4 years yet he got caps in two further occasions so to put an end in his international playing career table is absolutely ridiculous. Why raise such change when this topic had been discussed for numerous occasions and everything works this way for such a long period. It does not need amendment. Not at all. Haklam1218 (talk21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
So your view would be that Fraizer Campbell's international career is not yet over, even though he is 34 years old and hasn't been capped for 10 years? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Mate the lad did that to Dele Alli not bloody Frazier Campbell. Like I point out above a player can be excluded from his international team but get recalled and get caps after a couple of years of omission from the international squad so putting an ending in his international career year table is unreasonable AND unnecessary. Haklam1218 (talk)21:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll point out that putting an end year in the infobox doesn't end a player's international career. Wikipedia doesn't have that kind of power. It just indicates the years during which a player earned international caps. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Haklam1218:
Once a player has officially retired from playing football his international career is over at the sametime thus he is definitely out of the international picture.
But then, there's no such thing as being "officially retired". They only difference between a retired player and a player who is out of contract is the intent of the player. All retirements — club and country — are unofficial. Technically. speaking, Zidane was already retired when he played at the 2006 World Cup, since he was out of contract at Madrid. In theory, Brazil could call up Ronaldinho for the next round of World Cup qualifiers. We just assume that only active players are selected.
Let’s take an example, Stekelenburg got omitted from international squad for 3 years, 4 years yet he got caps in two further occasions so to put an end in his international playing career table is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't see what's "absolutely ridiculous" about that. Until 2021, it was factually correct that he earned 58 caps between 2004 and 2016. And once that changed, because this is Wikipedia and we can make changes on the fly, we were able to add 4 caps to his total and extend his international career to 2021. Though we should point out that goalkeepers are a special case since they have fewer opportunities than outfield players, so we should consider recent call-ups in addition to appearances.
Why raise such change when this topic had been discussed for numerous occasions and everything works this way for such a long period.
That the topic has been "discussed for numerous occasions" tells me there isn't a consensus and it's worth discussing. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
there's no such thing as being "officially retired" There is, a player without a club for a season or two. In reality they won’t come back to play games any longer thus you can put an end on their international stats. I do think putting an ending to an individual international career is unnecessary. It makes people feel like they have retired from international football. And the same method has been using for ages there is zero need to change it as this create confusion. Haklam1218 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
player without a club for a season or two
That’s neither “official” or “retired”. You’re just creating an arbitrary standard.
It makes people feel like they have retired from international football.
You’re making assumptions about how bunch of strangers feel without any evidence. Anyway, we’re not concerned about how we make people feel. We’re simply communicating verifiable facts by informing them that Dele Alli earned a few dozen caps between 2015 and 2019, and if that changes, the wonders of Wikipedia allows us to communicate a new fact. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus on the 2010 thread (archive 41), other than 1 of the involved editors claiming victory because things had gone quiet. I agree with those saying that we should plainly state the range of years that international caps were gained in, whether that be this year, last year or 5 years ago. Spike 'em (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

One year is unreasonable for me, two works better.Muur (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I think 24 months is fine, though I’d personally go with a full calendar year. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
And I'd say that as there is no rush to declare someone out of the international picture, why not wait four years? Felixsv7 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Why 4 years; that is a personal value judgement? We should report the facts, which in this case is the verifiable range of years that a player has represented their country. At a stretch I'd go with one year, as that seems to be how long we report someone as being a recent squad member on international team articles. Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Not at all, as I said in my previous statement it should be considered ongoing throughout a player's career but if we were to decide on an expiration date then make it a full World Cup cycle as, looking at it from a non-Euro centric lens, some nations play significantly fewer international matches in a calendar year and according to Wikipedia their international careers would be considered over rather than just dormant using the proposed new system. I really don't see what the rush is to stick an end date on the international career is anyway, there's no need to change how it currently operates, but if we do decide to change then we should definitely wait until it would be considered surprising if they were to receive a call-up - hence four years. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Mate the lad did that to Dele Alli not bloody Frazier Campbell. - Haklam1218, apologies if I misrepresented you, but you seemed to be saying that we should only be considering a player's international career over when he has actually completely retired from professional football. Therefore, on that basis both Alli and Campbell's international careers would be ongoing, because neither has retired from professional football, and the fact that one was last capped three years ago and one ten years ago wouldn't be a factor...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I would support a limit of any length of 12 months or greater. 12 months would be consistent with the national team articles themselves. e.g. England national football team#Recent call-ups doesn't list Dele Alli (or Frazier Campbell!) because he hasn't been picked in the last year. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 12 months is too short IMHO - each case should be judged individually (i.e. in the unlikely case that an international player's career takes a sudden nose dive and he drops down the leagues, we can probably close off the international career quicker), but as a rule of thumb anything from 2-3 years is acceptable. Let's also not forget that if a player comes back on the international scene, we can simply...update the article to reflect that! GiantSnowman 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with 2 years. 1 year seems a bit short as there could be various reasons (injury, lack of fixtures, etc) that a player could have a year between call-ups. I remember this being discussed sometime in the last year or two here and there was support for closing it off after a couple of years. As GS said, all it takes is one edit and pressing backspace four time to remove the year if a player gets a call up years later, it's not a huge deal RedPatch (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A year? 2 years? 3 years? These are all rather arbitrary, aren't they? Having the last date called-up is clear-cut. And as said by a few, it is quite easy to change the last date called-up. And the best thing to clear everything up is to have the note in the infobox reflect the meaning. --SuperJew (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Using England as an example (and WP lists as a source) : The median number of caps is 3 and the mode one (683 of 1269 England internationals have made 3 or fewer appearances). Most internationals therefore make a few appearances and then fade away from contention. 45 of the 99 currently active England internationals have not appeared since 2018, in may cases much longer, and I'd be surprised if more than 5 of these ever appear again. Keeping the international career span open for players who haven't appeared recently misrepresents the careers of many times more players than the occasional ones who make comebacks after a significant absence. Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I seem to recall that the international career of Matt Jarvis was still shown as "ongoing" when he was about 33 and playing in League One, because some editors were so wedded to the idea that it couldn't be closed off until he "officially retired from international football", as if he would ever make such an announcement after just one cap. The chances of his ever being picked again at that point in his career were so astronomically small that implying he was still an active England player just made the article look daft -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SuperJew. A note should be put in the infobox clarifying if the players current situation with his/her national side. As for the time period, I would say that it should be 2 years from the last call-up. So if a player was called-up in March 2013 then the cut-off would be March 2015, not June 2015. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would close it off after 12 months of inactivity, in line with removing the player from the "recent call-ups" section of the national team page (for consistency). If 12 months is too short, then we should also extend the "12-month period" of the recent call-ups to 24 months (or whatever). Using an end year, regardless of whether the last cap was made 10 years ago or this year, gives the false impression that someone who played today has retired this year. Nehme1499 12:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: There is no false impression if we extend the standard infobox note to ‡ National team caps and goals correct as of 2 February 2022. Time period is from first call-up until most recent call-up.. And there should be a side consensus if to use "call-up" or "appearance", which I think we should use call-up, as PeeJay says to reflect more correctly fringe players (A fringe player could be part of the national team for a decade but only play a handful of games, but if those games are closely grouped (say around an injury to a key player), then it gives a different impression if one uses appearances as the decider). --SuperJew (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of whether the player appears or not, a call-up to the national team should indicate that their international career is still active. This is important for third-choice goalkeepers, who might make only sporadic appearances but still be part of the squad. For that reason, I would suggest that a player's international career be marked as closed a year after the last game they were called up for, not necessarily the last game they played in. However, if a player announces their international retirement, that should supersede the one-year requirement. Yes, retirements can be reneged on, but it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to ignore an announcement of retirement just because the odd player has come out of retirement in the past. As far as we're concerned, if they say they're retired, they're retired, but such an announcement shouldn't be necessary for us to consider their international career over once a certain amount of time has passed. – PeeJay 13:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like Nehme's suggestion of extending the Recent Call-Ups to 24 months to match the closing of two years if we do go with that. If you're on the national team page, your career is open; if you're not, it's closed (exception obviously being formally retired players). Makes logical sense. If you get re-added, it reopens in the infobox, which is an easy and simple fix. RedPatch (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with what RedPatch just said.--EchetusXe 13:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No one who is throwing numbers around hasn't explained why we should use 1 year or 24 months or any other number (apart from one comment about 4 years being a normal World Cup cycle). --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
We need an arbitrary number for convenience, simple as that. In 1 year, the average national team plays around 10 games (for ~5 call-ups). If a player isn't called up for 5 (or 10, for 24 months) consecutive times, it stands to reason they aren't a current NT player. The year span can always be re-opened if they get called-up again. Nehme1499 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, we don't, we just need report the time-span that a player has either played for, or been called up to the national team. This is the only thing that is both verifiable and free of personal opinion of how long a player remains an international. Spike 'em (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Where's the issue in matching the player infobox to the list of players in the NT recent call-ups section? Nehme1499 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to Spike 'em's view that we should just put an end date immediately, because it's entirely free of personal judgement, arbitrary or otherwise, and based completely on verifiable information.
But for practical, consensus-building purposes, I think it makes sense to keep it open for players who are actively receiving call-ups. Here's my suggestion, though I'm really spitballing and open to suggestions:
  • If a player has received call-ups during an ongoing tournament qualifying cycle, keep it open until at least the completion of that tournament.
  • Close it if a player did not receive a single call-up during the qualifying campaign and was not named to the tournament final squad or the list of alternates
  • Close it if a player was not called up for an entire calendar year
  • Close it if the player's last call-up was over 24 months ago
I think it's worth reiterating that putting an end year is not declaring that a player is retired. It's just a way of showing when the player was actively with the national team. It's just like putting an end year on a politician's term in office — we're not declaring that the politician's career is over. So I really don't get the idea that closing the years after a year or two is "too short". We're not misleading anyone here. We're actually being more informative.
And again, "international retirement" is a concept that's best ignored — it's completely unofficial and non-binding, and it's not just Messi and Zlatan. We're also talking about Zidane, Larsson, Weah, Milla, Pirlo, Thuram, Makelele, Carragher, etc. And then there's Jamie Vardy, who said the door's not completely shut when announcing his international retirement, so even the players themselves don't think it's definitive. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, international retirement should not be ignored. You're right, it's not an irreversible decision, but most players who retire stay retired. If they announce it, we should respect it. If they choose to undo their decision, that's on them. – PeeJay 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, we should respect it, but we should recognize that only a tiny percentage of players announce their international retirement, and from that very small sample size, a not-insignificant percentage of them end up going back on their word. It shouldn't have any bearing on how we communicate basic career information.
There's no point in waiting for something that doesn't happen for the vast majority of players and doesn't affect a player's availability for selection. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, It would be interesting to see a graph that shows which percentage (Y) of 21st-century international players come back to their NT after (X) months of absence. Perhaps it will help us to reach consensus on when to close the period. --BlameRuiner (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpful, but not sure how on earth to go about getting the data. When the example of Stekelenburg was given above, I really wanted to reply "But only 4% of players who have not played an international for 3 years ever play one again", as we shouldn't be using edge cases to determine a general policy. Even though my goal would be to explicitly record the spans, I would go along with the suggestions above that we close the spans when a player moves off the recent call-up list as a second choice. Doing the research above, I found Longest gaps between England appearances which is a start at working out a really excessive upper bound. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I tried a basic manual analysis, again using England players. From the lists on here, and the linked player pages, there are 166 players who have played for England since 2000 AND have not played since 2020 (so at least a 1 year gap). Of all the players who have played in that time frame, 52 of them, on a total of 67 occasions have a gap of at least 1 CALENDAR year before playing another international. If we treat these individual gaps the same as the ones after last appearance, then there is a 29% chance (67/67+166) that a player will play again after a 1 year gap. HOWEVER, this assumes that none of the players who currently haven't played in a year will never play again, which is clearly very unlikely. I can't decide quite how to add some proportion of these players back into the equation, but trying a couple of different ways, I estimate that the chance of playing again after such a gap is about 35%. Spike 'em (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
35% is still a high number, which weights against adopting this style of closing the international career. I'm more in favour of keeping the current standards (keeping the int. career open) with a bit of sense, using extreme examples like Fraizer Campbell aren't very considerate. Of course Campbell's international career is over, since he's not playing top tier football for a top tier nation, but call-ups are mainly based on form and player moment, so we can't quite measure how those call-ups would go, nor when the player's international career definitely ended. That's why the "international retirement" announcement is an important thing.
As for the case brought up here (Dele Alli), I would keep his int. career open, since he is still playing in a top tier league, and is still held on high regards by Southgate, so I would say that he still has a good chance of being in an international call-up in the future. BRDude70 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this approach. The media also handles these cases as "returning to the national team" (see Balotelli's recent call-up, for example). Syncing the recent call-ups section with having the international career "open" in the player infobox is the most sensible solution. Whether the timeframe should be 1 year or 2 is another point. Nehme1499 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Balotelli is a midiatic example. A very "obscure" example: Fe Palermo was called up to the Brazil women's team back in 2019, played one single appearance and was not called up again, until two days ago, when Pia called her for an international tournament. She was always playing in Brazil's top tier league, and is still aged 25, why closing her international career? BRDude70 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Closing the international career doesn't mean it will be closed off definitely; in case a player gets called up again, they will have their career reopened. Nehme1499 17:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
it's reasonably high, but it also means you are misrepresenting the careers of twice as many players than not, and those players are still easily amendable should they get a recall. Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
By your reckoning we should still list Martin Kelly, John Ruddy, Tom Cleverley and Jay Rodriguez as internationals as they still play for Premier league teams, even though they last played for England over 8 years ago. Spike 'em (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: "By my reckoning", I recall using the word sense. Makes sense to keep Alli's international career open. Doesn't make sense to keep these other guys' int. career open. Just as it is now (or at least was). Even though I agree that a limit may be established, that's still not the best scenario in some cases, such as Alli's one. BRDude70 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Spike 'em Thanks for doing the math. Do you know the recall rate after two calendar years? 35% is definitely higher than I thought, but I imagine it drops quite a bit after two years, since we're talking about an entire World Cup or Euro qualifying campaign.
And it bears repeating, the end year is not, and has never been, a permanent marker. If Dele Alli's infobox shows "2015–2019" for his international years, it does not mean his international career ended in 2019. It just means he earned his cap between 2015 and 2019. That's it. There's no subtext there. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It was about 20% after 2 years and 10% after 3 years, though I'm still unsure if my method is valid and whether it is a large enough sample size!Spike 'em (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

So, in an attempt to gather WP:CON, shall we put this up to a vote? This discussion is going to the same points back and forth, and I do think that a vote on four or five options would be more direct and provide clearer conclusions.

I'd suggest:

  1. Keeping the current format (leaving the international career open until the player's retirement);
  2. Closing the international career after the last cap (which would make a current international's career displayed like XXXX–2022);
  3. Closing the international career after two years from his last cap and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article;
  4. Closing the international career after two years from his last call-up and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article;
  5. Closing the international career after one full World Cup cycle from his last call-up and expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article.

BRDude70 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I think the "expand latest call-up section" needs to be a separate discussion, but I would vote for 2 then 34 (but in line with current 1 year timeframe), and would vote against 1 and 5. Spike 'em (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I would vote option 4 (indifferent whether 1 or 2 years); meaning that, if a player made his caps between 2015 and 2017, and has been called up in 2022, his infobox would display "2015–". If he stops getting called up between 2022 and 2024, his infobox would be closed as follows: "2015–2017". Nehme1499 15:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3, closely followed by Option 4.   Question: Not to get too far in the weeds, but are we talking about two full calendar years or 24-month from the last cap? An advantage to using calendar years is that you can edit a whole bunch of players at the beginning of each year, instead of needing to keep track of different players and making updates piecemeal. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - As I pointed out, some players may remain involved with the national team despite not playing in any games in a given international window - take third-choice goalkeepers, for example. Hence, if a player is still getting called up, their international career should not be considered closed even if their last cap was more than 2 years ago. I would also support expanding the "Recent call-ups" section to include all players called up for EURO or World Cup qualifiers, but then remove them if they continue not to be called up for the qualifiers for the next tournament. – PeeJay 15:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - As there's no rush. But if we're doing ranked choice voting then Option 4. Does the Recent-Callups section really need to be expanded? Felixsv7 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - I'm against expanding the recent call ups section as two years ago is hardly recent. It would also be inconsistent with the results/fixtures section which only goes up to a year ago. I think someone who is called up but isn't capped is still part of the national team so I think option four is most sensible. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3: 3rd goalkeepers are often called up but they never play. Indicating their last cap is a lot more indicative . Otherwise, this is my "hierarchy": 4, 5 and 2 Dr Salvus 16:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4. A player's call up means that his coach takes him in consideration and could be fielded. Dr Salvus 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 works for me. A player who is still getting called up clearly has an active international career, even if they never actually make it onto the pitch. Mind you, that does prompt the ancillary question.....if a player has been called up but has never actually played should we show them with an international career but 0 caps? Or should we just ignore cases like that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I would say to show an international career with 0 caps. We don't delete a club line from a player's career because they didn't make an appearance. A player who was called-up to the national team but wasn't capped is generally considered better than a player who isn't even called-up. --SuperJew (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - 2 years since last call-up is probably right. GiantSnowman 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems to me we are voting on something when we haven't even decided what the thing is actually for. A proper RFC of the football infobox would be better than this. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Makes the most sense and is the easiest to be consistent with. Also, as others mentioned, second/third string goalkeepers are the most likely to have gaps. Two years also makes sense. Injuries happen and its not uncommon for a player to be out for about a full year, where they would be unavailable for a cap. RedPatch (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, but regarding last call-up as per my comments above. Easiest and most clear-cut. I'd also a note explaining as mentioned above. --SuperJew (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4Muur (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 makes sense for me. Clog Wolf Howl 08:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm just checking, people aren't suggesting that if a player receives a cap this year then isn't called up for two years that we would say their international career ends in 2024, right? We would still say their international career end date was 2022, the two-year span is just the amount of time we have to wait before we can add the date of their last cap to the infobox. – PeeJay 14:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The 'end' date' is the date of their last cap, not their last call up. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Well that depends which option from the above is favoured...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking. I don't want people to misunderstand the question. As far as I was concerned, there was never any suggestion that the date would be different, just that we would have to wait a certain amount of time before inputting that date. If my last cap is this year, my international career ends in 2022 but you have to wait until 2024 to put that in. – PeeJay 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
PeeJay my comment was in response to GS's statement "The 'end' date' is the date of their last cap, not their last call up". At the moment consensus seems to in fact heavily favour the date of last call-up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
No but that’s my point. The question is unclear. The date should be when he received his last cap but we shouldn’t close it until two years later. – PeeJay 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, none of the !voting options above cover whether the actual end date is last cap or last call-up? GiantSnowman 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, thinking about it, that element isn't covered. If a player last actually played in 2016 but was called up (without playing) in 2018, both option 3 and option 4 would say that his international career can now be considered over, but neither says what end date should actually be entered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly - but current consensus is (as far as I am aware) to only include the dates of caps. That is why if a player is called up in 2018, 2019 and 2020, but does not make their international debut until 2021, the infobox international career starts in 2021. Same goes for end. GiantSnowman 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm voting on the basis that, in 2024, we will close off a player's int. career by writing "2022". I think that everyone else who voted did the same (though I don't want to talk on behalf of everyone). I agree with GS's logic regarding opening the career in the infobox. Nehme1499 00:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
That was my belief also. The dates of the players caps would be used but we would wait two years before considering the international career over. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we should use dates of call-ups. In club career we have years by contract, not by games played. In international football career, call-ups is the closest thing. A third choice goalkeeper who was called-up consistently between 2010 until 2020 but only made one appearance in 2015, to show his career as only 2015 is a gross misrepresentation IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that not all databases show the matches a player was called-up to without participating. For example, while Soccerway and GSA do, NFT (the most-used database for int. football here) doesn't. This would create inconsistency between players. It's the same logic why we don't display cup stats in the infobox imo. Nehme1499 10:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Some players (for example from small African countries or small CONCACAF countries, especially female) it is hard to find info even of participating in international matches. Perhaps we shouldn't include any info in the infobox then so as not to have inconsistency? --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Having missing stats is not a problem. Having a goalkeeper with just 2015 because we just know his 1 cap in 2015, and have no info about his call-ups between 2010 and 2020, and another with 2015–2020 because we do have the info is not good practice, and would create more problems in the long run. Nehme1499 15:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

They're both missing information. --SuperJew (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
SuperJew - a player is called up at age 18 and then again age 38, but never makes their debut. Are you really going to give them a 20 year international career in the infobox? GiantSnowman 20:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman - a player is capped at age 18 and then again at age 38, but never in the between. Are you going to give them a 20 year international career in the infobox? --SuperJew (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman only refers to call ups, not caps. If a player had been capped aged 18 and is then capped aged 38, I'd give 20 years (people would easily understand if we indicated the player was capped twice) Dr Salvus 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@SJ: one is partial info which we can work with, the other is missing. Not knowing the bench appearances for some players and knowing them for others is aking to knowing cup stats for some and not for others: we only display the lowest common denominator. Not knowing the caps at all is the same as not knowing the years at all (completely missing information): we'd just keep the relevant fields empty. Nehme1499 08:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that option 4 has a clear consensus here, though we may need to split out a discussion about expanding the recent callups section. I'd record just the range of actual international appearances, anything more detailed (inclusion in squads etc) can be included in prose in main body of article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm voting 4 on the assumption that the two-year (or one-year) span is the same for both the recent callups and the years in the infobox. Nehme1499 14:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 we had this discussion some years ago and nobody took a blind bit of notice of me then either, but I like option 2 because it is always current. Admittedly the popular option 4 is better that the previous consensus of leaving it until they retired, but too many players last played any game at all several years ago, and their internaional career was still open ended. At least with option 2 when someone updates their stats they put the year of that cap so if they never play again it is right, and if they do, it gets updated with the new year so it is again right. ClubOranjeT 09:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
With option 4, if someone was last called up (2) years ago, the career would be closed. Nehme1499 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
If you set it to 10 years and someone was last called up 10 years ago the career would be closed. What's your point? That the career end would be out of date for two years?. That's only if someone updates it. There are over seventeen thousand articles without the career span closed out currently. And the thing about players who stop playing...not so many people bother updating their pages regularly. Would be so easy to just keep it reflective of what they have done rather than what they might do. ClubOranjeT 10:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Consensus? As this is liable to get archived if we don't actually come to a conclusion, does anyone disagree that Option 4 is the consensus best choice (or even least bad choice)? Spike 'em (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Are we keeping the "Recent Call-ups" section at one year or are we expanding it to two or do we need a separate consensus in order to amend that? Felixsv7 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose expanding the recent call-ups to two years? Nehme1499 13:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
No opposition from me for either (close after 2 / callups for 24 months). RedPatch (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I would oppose the section from being expanded as the Fixtures and Results section only includes the last 12 months therefore the Recent Call-ups matching that would make sense. I would however agree that in the Records section, a player will no longer be listed in bold once it has been two years since their latest call-up. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
What about closing the period in the infobox after 12 months, to match the recent call-ups section? Or, alternatively, if we also expanded the features and results section to 24 months? Nehme1499 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well we've just obtained the consensus to close the infobox after two years so I don't feel we can change that! On the NT pages: the Features and Results section can already get pretty long (as can the Recent Call-ups) and I don't think either requires expanding - especially as someone who updates the latest squads. I also don't think that the Player's infobox and the National Team's sections necessarily need to be correlated, I just feel that the information should be consistent on the page itself. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Expanding the Recent callups to 24 months from 12 makes the most sense, especially with the closing the infobox after 24 months. If I remove someone from the recent call-ups on March 1, 2022 because it's been 12 months, am I going to remember to close their box 12 months later on March 1, 2023? I guarantee I won't remember. However, if I remove someone from the recent callups because it's been 24 months, I'd just close their infobox at the same time since it's the same time frame. It's the best way for consistency. RedPatch (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
RedPatch, no. For example a player could get injured and be ruled out from the national team for one year for various reasons but I partially agree with you so I'd reduce the length from 24 to 18 months Dr Salvus 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with anything I said. I never talked about why a player would be dropped. This discussion is about matching recent call-ups to the infobox. Like I said it's easiest to edit the infobox and recent callups at the same time as opposed to doing one now and one 365 days from now, which is why I'm in favour of expanding to 24 months (ie. make longer/bigger) for both (from the current 12). Maybe you misread my comment and thought I wanted to shorten it, when I'm in favour of the opposite. Injury was one of the reasons why I suggested to make it longer a couple weeks ago in the first place. RedPatch (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with RP's analysis above. I voted for 4 conceptually, but not specifically regarding the timeframe. The key thing, for me, is to have the timeframes synced. Once I remove a player from the recent call-ups after 2 years (or 1 year, or whatever timeframe we decide is most appropriate), I'll go to his infobox and close the international career. It would be very difficult to keep up with this if, as RP says, I'll have to close the infobox 1 year after having removed him from the recent call-ups. Nehme1499 19:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
It just seems like such a large, unnecessary addition of data to National Team pages - adding another year's worth of call-ups to the Recent Callup and Fixtures & Results. It should probably be a separate conversation thread. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, lets not bring the results section into this. That's a discussion for another day. I'm happy with the two year cut off. It doesn't stop us reopening if a player goes three years between international appearances for whatever reason. My only concern with expanding recent callups to 24 months would be the potential length of it, it could make it unnecessarily long but I understand what RedPatch is saying. There's no guarantee that anyone will remember, or even be editing Wikipedia anymore, to close the international career in 12 months time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I just realise this conversation is on-going and an user has already made numerous changes to the players’ international career, without the so-called consensus. I oppose to option 4 and things should stay as it is. Option 1 is the most sensible option as no one can predict whether a player will be called up again. There will not be a consensus. Discussions after discussions. We should be leaving the international career open until the player's retirement. To put an ending year in a player’s international career column is like you are claiming him to retire from international selection. It makes no sense, at all. Haklam1218 (talk)10:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There is clear consensus for option 4 here. I'd personally go for a 1 year gap, but seems 2 years is more popular, so I'm not doing closing off anything more recent than that. Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A so-called consensus which is not known to others like me until today. A so-called consensus which is masterminded by your goodself. What is the criteria of passing a consensus and under what conditions? If people are doing this (changing players’ international career columns ie the 2 years cut off line thing) then do it probably, please and in the whole scale not a selection of players. It will take ages to do the job properly basically you have to check every single professional players who have played for their respective countries. Haklam1218 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Spike 'em, the consensus is clearly for option 4. The question now is regarding the time range (1 year or 2? the same for the recent call-ups and infobox or different?) Nehme1499 11:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've been through the lists of England players and checked / amended all those who are still active but not played in last 2 years. I have no doubt that a subset of those will need to be reactivated at some point, but that is all covered in the discussion above. This talk page is the main place to discuss football-related issues and it has a high enough readership that decisions like this can be taken. Where else would you suggest these discussions take place?Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you please provide trustworthy sources which show players’ last international call-up from their respective national teams? Cheers. And please do it for all players not just England players. Haklam1218 (talk)11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, England players only for me (or any random players I happen upon for other reasons) per WP:OBLIGATION. Please feel free to do as many or as few as you see fit yourself. Spike 'em (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: Having read through this discussion, I don't see that consensus has been reached. I think you should revert your recent changes to articles in which you implemented Option 3. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
12 out of 14 people who commented have option 4 among their options. However, there is no consensus on whether we should adopt a 1-year span or a 2-year one (or any other timeframe). Nehme1499 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Really? Most people said that 4 was either the best or second best choice (it certainly isn't my favourite) and didn't object when I tried moving things on after the discussion stalled. On the revert point: I thought I checked all the players before changing their pages against option 4. Whom do you think I got wrong? I was slightly surprised that it did seem that there didn't seem to be any players who played more than 2 years ago who hadn't been in a squad since, but thought it might be a COVID related oddity. Spike 'em (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through and checked all the England squads for past 2 years, and cant see any of the players I edited today since November 2019, so there is currently no difference between using Option 3 and Option 4 for them specifically. This will not necessarily hold in the future. Spike 'em (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
And a simple vote tally in addition to Nehme's point above: 1 (keep open indefinitely) : nobody; 2: 3 people; 3: 2 people; 4 : 8 people; 5 : 1 person; Lets have an RfC : 1 person. However you want to interpret, there is clear consensus to add end dates before a player retires. Spike 'em (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Considering secondary options, the numbers are: option 1 (0 votes), option 2 (3 votes), option 3 (1 vote), option 4 (12 votes), option 5 (1 vote). Nehme1499 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I chose option 1 so to say option 1 with 0 votes is untrue. Just saying. Haklam1218 (talk)19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I vote for Option 4, I think that's the best option of the five.--EchetusXe 12:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeframe

Option 4 has clear consensus above. However, while most people agree with the first part (closing the international career after [X] years from their last call-up), not everyone agrees with the second part (expanding the latest call-ups in the NT's article). Thus, I think we should have a further discussion regarding the timeframe we should apply: Firstly, should the timeframe be the same for both the player infobox, and the national team recent call-ups?

  1. Yes, the timeframe should be the same
  2. No, the timeframe should be different

Secondly, what should the timeframe be?

  1. One year for the recent call-ups, two years for the infobox
  2. One year for both
  3. Two years for both
  4. Other

Nehme1499 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Same timeframe, indifferent time period: for consistency, and simplicity of editing, I would maintain the same timeframe for both the infobox and recent-callups. Once a player is removed from the recent call-ups section, we would simply proceed to close the international career in the infobox. As RedPatch stated above: If I remove someone from the recent call-ups on March 1, 2022 because it's been 12 months, am I going to remember to close their box 12 months later on March 1, 2023? Whether we opt for a 1 year or 2 year timeframe is indifferent to me. Nehme1499 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One year/Two year My personal preference would be one year for recent call ups/two years for infobox as I feel recent call ups could get way too long if it were two years and I don't think one year since your last call up is quite sufficient to say your out of international football. I understand the points about not remembering to remove someone one year later, it would take a lot of work/dedication for some of teams if someone was to maintain a list of recent call ups (it's the only way I would remember) so I wouldn't be against one year for both. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe, one year period: If there is a difference in the timeframe, it will almost for sure not be updated properly. There are a select few editors who will remove a player from the recent call-ups section and remember to close their infobox international career a year later. Expanding the recent call-ups to 2 years, will need a massive expansion over around 400 pages, which is quite redundant. Personally, I still think the best thing and the way which will be best updated and most accurate is to "close" the international career with the last match played. For example: Erling Haaland would have 2019–2021 Norway 15 (12), meaning he represented Norway 15 times in the years 2019 until 2021. It doesn't mean he is not available for selection anymore (and there is no such thing anyway, even in cases of "official retirement from the national team" as we saw with Messi etc.) --SuperJew (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe, 18 months A player could be injured and be ruled out for 8 months for example and return playing at late November when there are no international matches for 3 months Dr Salvus 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: 18 months for both the recent call-ups and the infobox, or just for one of the two? Nehme1499 13:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 18 for both Dr Salvus 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I've amended the vote. Nehme1499 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe / 1 year I almost considered 2 years for the closing the career in IB, which is what I used when closing a bunch of players last week. I'm not convinced that those removing players from the recent callups sections will also do the infoboxes, but it might be a prompt for someone else to do at the same time. I did create a list for between 1 and 2 years for England players, but it does run into obvious maintenance issues. Spike 'em (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe, and 2 years GiantSnowman 16:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe / 2 years for both. Feel like 2 years is reasonable. I don't think it will make an article super long, it's not like there will be so much turnover where there will be 30-40 extra players who played 13-24 months ago but not in the past 12, perhaps more like 5-10. I also feel like there would be less pushback from other editors who see it: "He was on the team last year, he's still on the team" if we go with 12. When it becomes 2-3 years, it becomes easier to close. I don't think there needs to be a rush to re-add all the players from 13-24 months ago. No need to go find that random player called up 22 months ago for every team. Start it now, and it'd be done by the end of 2022 if that's easier as time rolls on. RedPatch (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    Using England as an example: there are currently 8 players in the 13-24 months since last call-up range, but if we tried doing the same thing as it would have been this time last year, I think there would have been about 15. There were 8 who were last called up in Nov 2019 and a bunch in the 6 months before then, but not sure how much of that is a Covid thing. There was a year gap between games, so probably more of sudden cull of players, some of whom would likely have been called up for games in the gap that occurred.Spike 'em (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Same timeframe / 1 year I agree with Stevie but the other issue that I brought up is that Recent Call-ups and Fixtures and Results are linked, not the infobox. If we are looking to host a referendum on this matter I think that this should be addressed. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
People also continue to use England as an example but that isn't where the issue of article length is most likely to be obvious. If we looked at Egypt or another African nation, this problem is more likely to be evident due to squads formed from players solely based within their nation and then a separate team featuring expatriates as well - which will balloon the section. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I keep using England as an example as I'm interested in that article. Any other editor is free to use another country as a counter example but I won't do so, sorry. Spike 'em (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Consensus Part 2?: If anything this seems to have complicated matters. The first vote came with a consensus of two years to close a player's infobox, however the second vote now leans towards closing the infobox after one year to align with Recent Call-ups and Fixtures & Results. Before this disappears into the archives, what is our collective decision? Felixsv7 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be consensus towards keeping the same timeframe, though not clear whether we should use 1 year or 2 years. Nehme1499 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Kit disruption

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. As I am currently ill and unable do much, could someone keep an eye on 213.194.181.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They have been adding false kits to infoboxes lately. Make sure to check any such changes, even ones that seem accurate as their edits are often very plausible. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment requested at Lukas Podolski

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could we please get a summarizing comment at Talk:Lukas Podolski#Revived in 2022. No ethnicity in the lede or retain a more than five year status quo of only German? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad stats updates

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

See [20] - this IP has been on a spree of updating player stats without updating the timestamp. Would anyone be able to help me go through and check that the stats are actually correct and, if so, update the timestamps? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: the first three I checked all had incorrect stats...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Didn't see this before undoing most of them. The stats appear to be all correct and up-to-date, except they're for all competitions rather than league only. I'm guessing it's this chap with a new IP address. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be an anonymous Walsall fan who thinks every appearance for the club should be included in the infoboxes instead of the leagues the club plays in. I think that's everything cleared up in terms of that issue. I hope the message Struway2 gave out on the IP address would help understand that chap in what's the right version as of now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Adelere13

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This guy is constantly messing around with a couple of footballer bio articles, it's like watching constant edit testing! Can someone have a look at his contrib, to me it is extremely irksome. I don't trust the editor either. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that... Adelere13 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

At it again I see, this time at Pepe Reina. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Reported to WP:AIV. The user has been blocked for this before and is either WP:NOTHERE or doesn't understand that WP:CIR. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikitables vs football box collapsible in club season articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

After another instance of a user trying to replace wikitables with the football box collapsible template in a club season article in my watchlist without consensus, I am unfortunately having to raise this subject here again. I cannot understand why this template continues to exist when it is a blatant violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Users who argue for its use give the reason that it is simpler to use. However, this is not a reason to go against the MOS. Personally I do not find editing wikitables difficult but appreciate that other users do.

Could we investigate creating a template using the wikitable format instead of a minority of users contentiously going around replacing wikitables with a template that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines? The main problem has been the same users mass creating club season articles each season using the football box collapsible template without a consensus being reached here and a concerted effort to stop this from happening. I remain hopeful that a solution can be found and hope that we can work together to make this happen. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree, a template would mean editors who find editing wikitables more difficult would not be excluded from updating articles that use them currently and would also hopefully make converting articles from the football template easier/less time-consuming. I'm not that much of a technical whizz otherwise I would've done it by now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@LTFC 95: Can you point to some of these club season articles? I'd like to see what it is you're trying to do so I can try to figure it out. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: Different formats of wikitable exist. One example is 2015–16 York City F.C. season, which is a good article. Other examples include 2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season and 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season, which are featured articles. The main objective of the template would be to help users who find editing wikitables difficult and establish a single format with complies with Wikipedia MOS to be implemented across all club season articles. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@LTFC 95: I'll see what I can work on. It will probably require multiple templates (header, row, maybe an ending template), though I'm not sure I'd be able to make it sortable that way. If you don't hear back from me within a few days, hit me up on my talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
​​UPDATE: I have built a couple basic templates in my user-space at User:Jkudlick/Football club season header and User:Jkudlick/Football club season row. I welcome any and all feedback. I plan to move them to template-space at the end of the week if there are no objections to doing so. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Either or, or, no thanks to your version of a table. I prefer Template:footballbox collapsible I find them much easier to manage than a big ass table. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't agree with Govvy more on this. The Footballbox aims to make it easier and more efficient and has done exactly that for the past 12 years or more..--Sakiv (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how many times it's been pointed out here but the football box used in that way does not meet Wiki policies and guidelines. A new template which does meet Wiki policies and guidelines will make it easier for editors who aren't as familiar with the code used on Wikitables. There will be almost no difference in managing this template vs managing a large collection of football boxes. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: What about the information of round, time, source/report(!), goalscorers, location, referee? --SuperJew (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: You're going by a guideline, guidelines aren't wiki-law! And besides, the guidelines are way out of date and need adjusting to modern styles. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If the guidelines are out of date, why not try and change them? Would it not be better if Wikipedians followed the guidelines that our community has put together to try and make Wikipedia the best it can be instead of just ignoring them because they haven't been updated and no one has tried to? Personally, I don't see anything more modern about a football box and less modern about a table when video games and websites use formats that are similar to both. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How to reflect players whose contract with Ukrainian or Russian teams is suspended by the new FIFA transfer rules in infobox.

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

FIFA introduced new transfer rules for the remainder of this season for foreign players who play for the Ukrainian and Russian clubs, here are the details.

They can suspend their contracts and sign with another club, but only until 30 June 2022 (at least at this point in time). So functionally, this is similar to a loan, except the club which has a long-term contract with the player has no say in it and can not block it from happening. But on 30 June 2022 their contract with their current club becomes valid again (of course, in the future FIFA can extend this rule or change or just release everybody from their contracts, but we don't know that now, and I'm not going to be crystal-balling here).

How should that be reflected in the clubs section of the infobox for the players who use this new rule? Just do it as any other loan? ( → FC Barcelona (loan))

Something else? The players who had to move to a new club during WWII were considered "wartime guests" and their infobox says (guest) instead of (loan), see Matt Busby.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Geregen2 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we just use the term loan unless sources indicate an alternative term.--EchetusXe 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
could even have something like Club ABC (dual reg.) maybe wiki link it for dual registration? RedPatch (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that each case is different. This one, where Wanderson (footballer, born October 1994) is close to a deal with Sport Club Internacional, but it is described as a loan with an obligation to buy. On the other hand, this one, Júnior Moraes is already considered a free agent since his contract expires in June and FIFA allowed players from Ukrainian clubs to leave. BRDude70 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, if there is reliable information confirming that the contract was expiring in June anyway, we can just treat it as a regular permanent transfer for the infobox, instead of splitting hairs. Wanderson is signed with FC Krasnodar until 2024 though, so that needs to be somehow reflected in the infobox. FWIW, Transfermarkt lists the players under this rule as "special leave". Sounds too wordy for the infobox, but maybe we could use that. Geregen2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

History of the sport in MLS club articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a topic of discussion that may be of interest to project members at Talk:Charlotte FC#History of the sport in the city is not context. Some Major League Soccer club articles include a history of the sport in the city as part of the article about the club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

List compilation help

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Can someone help out in adding entries to List of naturalized international footballers? I have written helpful tips for finding these players in the talk page. Nehme1499 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(Btw, should the article be moved to "naturalised", as we are using "football" and not "soccer"?). Nehme1499 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to rethink the scope of this article. Countries with a high level of incoming migration are going to be disproportionately represented. Hack (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Hack: Hariboneagle927 is the creator of the article. I think the logic of the article is to only list players who have been granted citizenship with the sole purpose of representing the national team. In the sense that, they wouldn't have became citizens had they not had the intention to play internationally for their new country. But yeah, I agree, it's difficult to set parameters for these kinds of things.
It's also disproportionate with different citizenship rules. For example, Mario Balotelli gained citizenship by naturalization, as Italy doesn't confer nationality via jus soli. Were he born in the US, for example, he wouldn't have been naturalized. On the flip side, a player from a country with jus sanguinis law would not be naturalized if born abroad, yet a US citizen would have to go through naturalization to become a US citizen. Countries such a Lebanon, who only confer nationality paternally, also complicate matters.
In short, two players who come from exactly the same circumstance (say, born abroad to a foreign mother), would obtain citizenship in different ways (naturalization or birth right), which affects their inclusion in this list. Nehme1499 13:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: I'm just wondering if this is really explained well and is it sourced for such a list. It sounds quite a specific subset. Also, I'm not sure how we are meant to judge intention of players becoming citizens. --SuperJew (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think different editors/readers are going to interpret the list differently. I would probably nominate it for deletion. Nehme1499 11:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a confusing list. "Naturalised" normally means you change/obtain citizenship. But this article is not using countries, but FIFA teams (England/Scotland are not countries that have citizenship, it's UK), which makes no sense as a FIFA nation is completely different from a country that grant citizenship. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
And even then, do we consider "naturalized" by the country's standards, or simply as "obtaining a nationality"? Because numerous players born abroad with X descent have gained the citizenship of X (via jus sanguinis) to represent their national team. Should they be in the list? Because the country doesn't consider them as "naturalized". Nehme1499 11:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hack, Hariboneagle927, SuperJew, and Joseph2302: I have nominated the article for deletion. Feel free to comment. Nehme1499 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

First do you ask for contributions, then nominate the article to be deleted? It doesn't make any sense to me. Svartner (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this past week that the scope of the article doesn't make sense. Can't I change my view on an article? Nehme1499 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Honours in info box

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What did we come up with again? Was it only to have olympics honours in info boxes? I was trying to find the conversation we had about that, couldn't seem to find it in the archive. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this the conversation found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_125#Infobox_medals that you were trying to find? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
See WP:FOOTYMEDALS. In the most recent discussion, it was decided to include all international medals in the infobox. Nehme1499 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep, because Adelere13 Who was banned, was mucking around with the stuff, earlier was doing ban evasion on an IP, still mucking around with it. So I just wanted to check what our policy was. Govvy (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I've gone too far in the past and did not notice the one in Archive 147. I was searching for the contributions from Govvy with the edit summaries containing "infobox" and found the one from Archive 125 instead of the one which was actually pointed out. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_151&oldid=1139685202"