Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 155

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Archive 160

Articles for merging

It's tough to tell as neither article is of a particularly good standard, but I think the articles for Northamptonshire Senior Cup and Hillier Cup are actually describing the same competition. The list of winners/runner-up are very similar (although not completely identical!), and Kettering Town have won both trophies 31 times :P

Therefore I think these articles need combining/merging (or maybe just the Hillier article deleting?), but this is all a bit beyond my skillset if anyone can be of assistance? Thanks for your help Nonleagueapps (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

From the text on both pages they are the same competition. I don't know if there is a naming convention for these (being called the Hillier Senior Cup since 1981 would suggest this is not a sponsored name), but it seems Hillier Senior Cup should be the base article with the other 2 pages redirected to it. The 2 articles give different results for recent finals, and neither is particularly up to date (or was it cancelled due to Covid?). It doesn;t help that the refs used are now 404s. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I found a league source which shows recent winners and merged the articles. The list of winners in the NSC article seems to be a year out of sync for at the begining of the crosssover of results, so I've not included. Happy for somone else to do so if they figure out where it goes wrong (will have to look in the page history). Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, great work! Looking at some of the other county cups using the template at the bottom, the consensus seems to be to have the county name as the title of the article ('Northamptonshire Senior Cup'), but then the other name in bold in the lead sentence ('Hillier Senior Cup'). For example, the Isle of Wight Senior Cup is the name of the article, with it described as the 'Senior Gold Cup' in the lead sentence. Is everyone happy if we go with that here for consistency? (It annoys me how the 'Northamptonshire Senior Cup' in the template isn't blacked out when you're on the page because the title doesn't match!) Nonleagueapps (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Peter Barnes (footballer)

@Rcclh: is edit warring at this article to change the Leeds stats from 31 to 30 games. Sources say both, but the STABLE version is 31 and that is supported by (in my view) a better calibre of source, being Hugman, Neil Brown, and (based on the career stats table) ENFA - as opposed to the Leeds fan sites and WorldFootball Rcclh suggests. Can anybody shed any light please? GiantSnowman 19:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Do any of these sources actually list the 31/30 games? That would be helpful to clear up the situation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The fan sites do - but they might be missing a match. GiantSnowman 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 fraid not :( . Soccerway and Soccerbase are useful in displaying matches players have played in but on Soccerbase, Barnes only appeared to play for Man City v Newcastle which he scored. Soccerway does not include any league appearances at all. Where next folks? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Rothmans:30 Leeds United A complete record 1919-1989 :31 The difference is the match against Manchester City 10 March. These things happen sometimes. Reliable is not the same thing as 100% accurate. (I would go for 31 in this case). Cattivi (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it should be 31. @Rcclh: do you agree? GiantSnowman 06:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the report on that match in The Times dated 11 March 1982 and it does not list Barnes in the Leeds team, which would point towards the Rothmans source being correct and 30 being the right number...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you think ENFA, Hugman, The writers of the Leeds United complete record book etc. are not aware what newspapers and Rothmans write? I think they know what they're doing. They use much more sources than only a few newspapers. I think there is a high possibility you are re-introducing errors made in the past if you use sources like the Times and Rothmans this way.Cattivi (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's now 3 sources saying Harris and not Barnes played v Man City. Where are the source saying Harris played? The Leeds F.C. History site have miscounted their own data and all the other sites have just copied the 31. Rcclh (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree. I've posted the evidence twice now listing the individual games on both the Barnes article' talk page and your talk page and I haven't seen any evidence to say Barnes and not Harris played against Man City.

Let me show you again ...

It appears some sources have taken this page of total appearances from the Leeds F.C. History site where they have miscounted the appearances of Barnes and Harris. https://www.leeds-fans.org.uk/leeds/history/67.html This says Barnes played 31 and Harris 15(3). However on the same site, they document each appearance individually and the total for Barnes comes to only 30 as referenced here with "30/30" (30th start out of 30) on the last game of the season v WBA http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20West%20Bromwich%20Albion%20(a).php whereas the final start for Harris is referenced as 16/16 (16th start out of 16) http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20Manchester%20City%20(h).php

It is perhaps because Harris took Barnes usual 11 shirt on his final start for Leeds that the mistake in the totals was made. Another site concurs that Harris, and not Barnes played in that match against Manchester City https://www.worldfootball.net/report/premier-league-1981-1982-leeds-united-manchester-city/ Rcclh (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Jarred and MacDonald published the book I mentioned in 1989. They can’t have used online sources. More likely are the Yorkshire Evening Post, Jarred worked there in 1989, the club records and official FA records. I’m pretty sure ENFA and Hugman used Jarred and MacDonald. They both started publishing\ have their origins in the pre internet days. Harris, Barnes is not the only difference. In the book Balcombe is not wearing his usual 6 shirt, but the 5 shirt. Cherry played with Number 6. Cattivi (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't really clear to me from your previous message what you had found. So you are saying Jarred and MacDonald published a book on Leeds United that specifies Barnes playing in the match on March 10th 1982, or just that he played 31 games? If the former, that makes a difference because i hadn't seen or heard of a source for that so far, and so balances the probabilities more in my eyes. I still think there is more evidence for 30 though, as we can now add a Man City site to the list https://www.citytilidie.com/latest/leeds-away-198182/ which means we have a report at the time (The Times), a world football site, a Leeds site and a Man City site. Incidentally there's a flickr user that scans in football programmes that would tell us the answer on the statistics page, but frustratingly the last Leeds programme scanned in for that season was Leeds v Man City. Rcclh (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ENFA list both Barnes and Harris playing in that match. Barnes 31, Harris 15+3 league apps that season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ok - when ENFA was quoted before and someone asked if they listed matches the reply was that "the fans sites do", so that's also new information.

Have chedked newspaper reports on the match. Neither Harris nor Barnes are mentioned and team sheets are not provided. However there are stories on the same day that John Bond, manager of Manchester City, was enquiring about buying "unsettled" (Daily Telegraph) and "out-of-favour" (Reading Evening Post) Barnes. Additionally Harris, and not Barnes, played in the game before and the game after the Leeds / Man City game. Very much pointing to him not playing in this game. Rcclh (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The Times report lists the line-ups and has this team for Leeds: Lukic, Greenhoff, Gray, Hird, Cherry, Burns, Butterworth, Thomas, Worthington, Connor, Harris. The report also specifically notes "....while Harris on the opposite wing could only manage to involve himself in the game sporadically". I know reporters do make errors, but it would seem to be pretty unusual for the reporter to specifically namecheck Harris if it wasn't him playing....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I also found a report from the Aberdeen Evening Express (random I know but there you go) dated 12 March saying "Former Scotland striker Derek Parlane and England winger Peter Barnes are recalled to the Leeds United squad for tomorrow's relegation clash at Sunderland". He wouldn't be described as being recalled if he had played in the last game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a big problem with the line-ups on page 305 of the book. Balcombe didn't play 23 games 0 goals. In the home game against Aston Villa when he scored, he isn't even in the line-up. Aspin, Thomas, Butterworth all completely wrong. Looks like something went wrong in an excel file. Balcombe 1 game 1 goal on page 59 is correct. If they both played(ENFA) someone else (not Harris) didn't play against Manchester City. Cattivi (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cattivi: do you or @Struway2: have the full line-up for the game as listed by ENFA so that we can compare it with the one listed by the contemporary source from The Times.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear now Barnes didn't play in that game and Harris did. Balcombe made 1 appearance for Leeds in October 1981 v Aston Villa. Rcclh (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

1 John Lukic 2 Brian Greenhoff 3 Eddie Gray 4 Kevin Hird 5 Kenny Burns 6 Trevor Cherry 7 Carl Harris 8 Gwyn Thomas 9 Frank Worthington 10 Terry Connor 11 Peter Barnes

according to ENFA. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

and if you want a different contemporary lineup, there's The Grauniad's Lukic, Greenhoff, Gray, Hird, Cherry, Barnes, Butterworth, Thomas, Worthington, Connor, Harris. But true to its reputation, it lists 11 players but omits Burns, who must have been there or he couldn't have been sent off in the first half... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If we assume that the Guardian has Barnes as a typo for Burns (which seems plausible given where he is listed in that line-up) then that XI would match what The Times has. The player that ENFA are missing is Aiden Butterworth, and again he is specifically namechecked in the Times report ("Butterworth almost had a death wish to run down blind alleys"). I really think all the signs are pointing to the line-up in The Times being the right one, meaning that Barnes did not play. Annoyingly none of the Yorkshire local papers seem to be available on Gale, proQuest, BNA or Newspapers.com...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is true, the line-up in ENFA would be unverifiable for everybody, it would be fiction, that’s a very bad thing. Someone should ask ENFA what their source is, there can still be a good explanation. Cattivi (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

:I know Pete Barnes is the brother of John Barnes. I create the 1980-81 Nottingham Forest season masterpice article and I'm gonna delete it because the Nomenklature censored my CONMEBOL Qualification stages Position by round tables. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Can someone temporarily block Hugo? It's getting annoying. Nehme1499 00:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) I have blocked him for 72 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section

An RfC is pending at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Other players under contract"

I noticed that a lot of club and club-season articles have sub-sections titled "other players under contract" (see here), listing fringe players who have just come back from loan spells but are not included in the first-team squad by the club itself. Most of those players are bound to depart again soon, but it's not uncommon to see one or two guys remain there for an entire season, either because they're injured or the club is unable to sell them. Needless to say, those section are usually unreferenced (but most likely relying on information found on Transfermarkt).

So the question is: what's the consensus here? Personally, I would get rid of those sub-sections since they're unsourced and OR. Besides, if such players are not considered first-team players by the club, I see no reason for us to include list them at all (just like we don't list every single academy player, or every single kitman for that matter). Luxic (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there are some editors of football articles who aren't members of the WikiProject and just create their own manuals of style, common sense be damned (seeing transfer tables getting updated with the club a released player joined three months later still blows my mind). You're right to request input, but it seems like we're fighting an uphill battle. Seasider53 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That section seems to be a misnomer, you're either in the first team squad or a youth team squad. Either a correct title added or remove the section completely. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreee with Luxic. I too believe there can be those who aren't considered first-team players. Dr Salvus 10:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Case in point for rogue editing: Tom Barkuizen was released by Preston on 9 May (officially 30 June, of course), and this morning his release got updated to a transfer to Derby County (in parentheses, to denote it happened "after his Preston North End contract expired") in North End's outgoing transfers for this season. I've since removed the player-tracking attempts, although it was reverted briefly this morning. Seasider53 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seasider is correct that when a player is released, he should be shown as 'released', not moving to a new club on a free transfer.

I also think Govvy is right that 'other players' should not be a section. If they are a contracted senior player but do not have a squad number then list them with a '-'. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

GS, so you'd put want to see 48398903 players with a "-" and huge templates? I'd prefer seeing the section. Dr Salvus 10:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think most people would prefer to scroll through a table in one section rather than scroll through multiple sections to get the same information. Seasider53 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What clubs have such large squads of players that are neither first teamer or 'reserve/U23' etc. squad members? GiantSnowman 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See the huge amount of non youth teams players Juventus do have. I'm afraid they won't loan every player due to Fifa's new rules and that we'll have exceeding player. Dr Salvus 11:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

From a quick sample, lots of those players look to be under-23 - so why aren't they included with the under-23 players? GiantSnowman 11:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance required, if anyone's willing. On-the-fly adjustments (including footnotes now) are being made in an attempt to support post-release transfers. Seasider53 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

GS, most of the players aged <24 you've seen are those I don't think they'll ever be given a number for Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 12:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur

Looks like "Tottenham Hotspur" is common name than "Tottenham Hotspur F.C.". "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." is probably fake (such abbreviation is rather not used expect Wikipedia). Eurohunter (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? – PeeJay 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Eurohunter, assuming you are suggesting changing the title of the main article. The full name should be used. Although "Tottenham Hotspur" would appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME in this situation, "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." is the club's official name and should be used. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: No. Official full name is "Tottenham Hotspur Football Club". There are four variants:

1. "Tottenham Hotspur" - short official name used by club in social media and at official website + it is also WP:COMMONNAME used by media (examples: [1], [2], [3]).

2. "Tottenham" - shorter variant of the name used by media alternately (examples above).

3. "Tottenham Hotspur Football Club" - official full name.

4. "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." - not used by media or probably not used by anyone else and part of name is incorrectly abbreviated (should be "Tottenham Hotspur FC" - without dots).

Eurohunter (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an absolute non-starter - otherwise we will end up with article club names like Man U and Liverpool (football club) etc. GiantSnowman 09:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I don't think anyone would have an issue with "Football Club" instead of the suffix "F.C.", but that looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

One thing to consider: in the Premier League there is a team commonly known as Bournemouth but there is also Bournemouth F.C. which is a totally different club from the same place in fact. With Tottenham Hotspur, there is also Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) which was operated for three years so dab on "Tottenham Hotspur" is and will always be needed. And to use some local rivalry examples - there are a few clubs named "Arsenal" worldwide - see Arsenal_(disambiguation)#Association_football and we would not move Arsenal F.C. to Arsenal either because the latter page already has content reserved for the weapons. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning

It would appear that a random 29-year-old Premier League footballer has been arrested per this news report. Keep your eyes on any potential vandalism on the random article in case people who know the identity of that footballer starts editing that page. He can't be named for legal reasons - the same case with Gylfi Sigurðsson almost a year ago where people probably vandalised that article of the former Everton player. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restrictions on naming the player almost certainly only apply in the UK. Media elsewhere and Wikipedia can name him. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful even if named in foreign media to report the notable elements and not get into blow by blow accounts or speculation. Koncorde (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely no BLP worries here. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Raphinha

Could I get some input at Raphinha for the RM? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Officialised deals

When a deal is officialised, can there be a reliable source different from the club's website? Dr Salvus 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources are preferred over club announcements. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Island92 doesn't agree with. Dr Salvus 21:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Depending on which website the source is taken from.--Island92 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Juventusnews24 (a site I use very much) and Goal.com are rubbish. But you'd removed Michel Pisano's transfer to Bayern Munich which is sourced with Goal.com. Dr Salvus 21:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, despite that info coming from Goal.com, I did not consider it to be trusty.--Island92 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And why? Dr Salvus 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Because personally I consider it to be far from the normal football transfermarket. It's my opinion.--Island92 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Michele Pisano played for Juventus U16 in 21/22, but would there be a reason for which the news had a significant coverage? Search "Michele Pisano" and you won't find just a few results. Dr Salvus 21:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mb, he's Manuel Pisano 🤦‍♀️. Dr Salvus 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential Clive Middlemass copyvio

I can check on this when I have time, if nobody else has been able to, but I put the pertinent info on Middlemass's talk page. Either the Lancashire Evening Post has lifted from his Wikipedia article almost verbatim, or a Wikipedia editor has been deft with some copying and pasting skills. Seasider53 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

False alarm. Just had a peek at the edit prior to his death and it's largely the same. Amazing work by the LEP reporter, then... Seasider53 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Maps in CFL season pages

Do we really need the recently added 'team location maps', in all the CFL season pages? I'm asking here, as WP:CFL is semi-active. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes I think. Dr Salvus 21:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Just so you know, this is the WikiProject for soccer. I think you wanted Wikipedia:WikiProject American football since you were asking about the CFL and North American Football instead of European football, which is what this one is. RedPatch (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend it be renamed "Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football", to avoid any confusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen someone post something about American football in here in my eighteen or so years on Wikipedia. That isn't to say it hasn't happened, but it seems most people pay attention sufficiently. Seasider53 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian football. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Raheem Sterling

Can Raheem Sterling be protected please? JMHamo (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Second opinions sought

Is the Newport player in this image John Aldridge? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Right era and does look very much like it is him. Eagleash (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And he scored twice in that game. Seasider53 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Added to his article. I happened to stumble across the image while looking for an picture of Newport's old stadium and thought to myself "blimey, that sure looks like John Aldridge, why is that image not in his article?" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating club info on national team squads

I noticed that some editors are (in my opinion) incorrectly changing club information players in national team articles, specifically Argentina, Brazil ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and England ([9] [10] [11] [12]). I've reverted a few of these edits but realized I was getting into an edit war but I've stopped.

Anyway, in each case, there's a note saying the information is correct as of the June FIFA window, and updating them to reflect the July transfers introduces inaccuracies. The player information should reflect their club status at the time of the June international matches, right? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I say updating is fine, when you also update the date. I mean the age is also the curretn one and not the one from the last game. -Koppapa (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way, but if the information is meant to be current, then we should probably remove the "Information correct as of..." notes. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The "correct as of" should definitely be kept. And I agree with Koppapa: as long as you update the date it's fine to update the club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The national team squad info should show the club the player was at when the squad was announced. Those squads can be several months out of date at times, and really there's no such thing as the national team squad once the international window has closed and the players go back to their clubs. But just because a player moves clubs between one international window and the next doesn't mean we should update the club info on the national team page. – PeeJay 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel it should be Current Club. If I go to a national team page (often in anticipation of future matches), I'm interested in where those players play now not months ago. Also, I feel like the current status quo is to update to current club and the majority (if not all) of the time I see editors who are not members of this wikiproject updating national team squads to current club. That is what people will expect. This same discussion was held here last July and seems like more people preferred current club over the club at call-up (although the latter group was much more vocal). RedPatch (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch Then what you're looking for isn't "Current squad", which isn't a thing that exists after the end of the FIFA window or a tournament. As @PeeJay points out, there won't be a "current squad" until September. And while you might prefer the latest/greatest information in a table, it's inaccurate. The fact is, Kalvin Phillips played in Nation's League matches as a Leeds player and Gabriel Jesus was listed on the Brazil squad as a Manchester City player.

For the player lists to be correct and verifiable, I think we can do it one of two ways:

• Rename "Current squad" to "Latest squad" for accuracy, have all the information be valid as of the start of the FIFA window/first day of the tournament, including club and age information.
• Keep "Current squad" while the squad is actually current, then roll everyone into the "Recent callups" list of players called up within the previous 12 months, update club information as needed. Because as far as squad status is concerned, there's no difference between a player whose most recent callup was June vs March.

Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, this discussion took place at the same time last year and is referenced on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. It was mentioned that the latest age and cap/goal number is currently used therefore using their current club is in line with that - I don't think there's any need for a change to the status quo. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a prior discussion and I'm fine with updating clubs as they change, but could we do the following?

1. Get rid of the "Information correct as of...." note since the consensus seems to be that we should update the information as they change.
2. Rename "Current squad" to "Latest squad" or "Most recent squad", since that's not really true the majority of the time.

Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want the "as of" date to be removed. That's like saying that we should remove it from players' infoboxes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue that Adeletron has identified is that if, say, the article says "Information correct as of 6 June 2022" (because that was when the national team last played) but then someone changes the club of a player who moves on 10 June, then the info is no longer correct as of 6 June. So maybe rather than being removed completely, we should insist that if anyone changes a player's club they need to also update the timestamp (although I bet they won't) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I always assumed that the timestamp should be updated when any information (be it the roster, numbers, clubs, etc) is updated. Of course, if the club is updated on 10 June then the timestamp should also reflect that date. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd definitely want some form of time-stamp, either Information correct as of... or Caps and goals updated as of ____, after the match against ____ (not specifying DoB and Club), and Latest squad would probably be more accurate but I'm content with Current Squad - it's more dependant on what others think! Felixsv7 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Recreation for list of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players.

Can we recreate a list of players who won European Cup and UEFA Champions League? NextEditor123 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No - it was deleted at AFD and it's likely to be upheld at DRV. Recreation would be disruptive and result in a block. GiantSnowman 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So creation of the article, recreating it after it was deleted at AfD, requesting a DRV which was upheld, and now posting on this talk page again. I think you've exhausted all the options and the consensus is quite clear. --SuperJew (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not create the article and did not started the DVR. I just asked the question. NextEditor123 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@SuperJew: umm, that was me who did the DRV! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Sunderland A.F.C.

I have nominated Sunderland A.F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative categories - looking for input

I stumbled upon several categories created by one user in March this year. Namely:

• Category:Swiss men's footballers
• Category:Men's association football players by nationality
• Category:Men's association football players
• Category:Men's football in Switzerland
• Category:Men's association football in Europe
• Category:Men's association football by continent
• Category:Afghan men's footballers
• Category:Men's football in Afghanistan
• Category:Albanian men's footballers
• Category:Men's association football in Asia
• Category:Men's association football by country
• Category:Men's football in Albania

In edit summaries, this user claims he created those categories following Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188#RfC: Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers. There seems to be a consensus found in that Village pump proposal, however the categories above is all we have now - five months after said proposal.

What do you think should be the next course of action? Should the consensus be enacted totally throughout the whole footballers categorization trees, or should the abovementioned categories be put to discussion at WP:CFD?

Thanks. Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I started editing some pages in the hope that the proposal would be acted upon by someone more technically skilled. There was also some discussion on this page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_152#Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers) about how to go about it (mostly about what would be appropriate names for the categories). Obviously the task is quite big and daunting. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely via CfD, links to the Pump discussion and the previous one on here should get the ball rolling. Not volunteering to compile the proposal itself but happy to add a voice to the discussion if needed. Crowsus (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

agree that new categories should not be created, but existing ones re-named using CFD. GiantSnowman 16:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Community Shield runners-up

Is coming second in a two team competition an “honour”? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Medals are given, so yeah. You still need to "qualify" in order to play the game. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's second in a tournament of 2. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide whether it's an honour or not. If the respective FA gives out medals, it's an honour. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, per Nehme1499. Dr Salvus 20:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer all honours to be winners only. Makes it more consistent about what is included. Many of those pre-season tournaments hand out Cups and medals. By the "a medal is awarded", then those would need to be included too. RedPatch (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve received a host of “medals” for finishing runs, bike rides etc. but I wouldn’t treat them as “honours”, so I’m not sure the medal argument is helpful. Likewise, the only qualification required is to win the Premier League or FA Cup (generally), for which medals are already given. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this. "Received a medal" has never been a criterion for notability. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your runs and bikes-related medals are not FA-sanctioned, though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point that DK2018 was making is that, given that there's only two teams in the Community Shield, every player gets a medal just for turning up. It's essentially a participation award...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That was also my point. The honour from it was winning the PL or FA Cup in order to qualify for the Community Shield, not losing the event itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We clearly write it down when it's a runners-up medal. When a player doesn't have many honours in his career, I see nothing wrong with a few runner-ups in there. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not an honour. It's a "thanks for coming" essentially. Seasider53 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

We include all second places, and so should we in a two teams' official tournament, like Community Shield. Dr Salvus 12:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Runners up is less an "honour", and more a "look what your honour could have been". For some players and teams it's significant, for other teams it's irrelevant. If its a players sole "honour", then it is likely significant to include. If the player has won a whole batch of other trophies but NOT the charity shield - again it may be relevant to include. But once they have wins in that competition and others its inclusion criteria becomes less significant.

As a point of note, and competition of significance mentioned under honours should be mentioned in the narrative of the career - and if a Runners Up is covered in significant detail specifically in conjunction with that player (in other words not just WP:ROUTINE coverage) then due weight and similar would support its inclusion both in the lede and summarised in subsections and so on. Koncorde (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

medals are also given out for league runners up. if you dont coutn this, youd discount all super cup runners upMuur (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange situation as to think that should be an honour for runners-up yet I see someone returning the honour and ref to the Liverpool players in 2019 (example). At this moment it is unstable as to see if that content should be included or not re the runners-up Community Shield honour since that has been removed/re-inserted many times among a handful of articles including Joe Gomez (footballer). But there are Community Shield honours for the winners. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion - although at the beginning of the season, it's an actual competitive competition, recognised by UEFA as a 'super cup', that has been running for over a century, as opposed to the unofficial, unrecognised, here-today-gone-tomorrow pre-season tournaments like the Audi Cup, Asia Trophy, Emirates Cup etc. You receive a medal for finishing as runner-up, rather than just coming second and that being that (such as league tournaments) and as with other trophies it therefore should justifiably be included in the Honours section. I'm not sure the number of teams in the tournament should make a difference, particularly as it's a super cup. It's an official trophy according to all the official bodies, you receive a runners-up medal, so I can't see any reason at all why it shouldn't be included, unless we commit to removing ALL runners-up medals, which would be a separate conversation (but which I'd also disagree with. --OGBC1992 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• I vote no, coming second in a 2-horse race shouldn't get you any honours. Completely irrelevant that they get medals IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d argue, as we’re discussing the ‘Honours’ section, the fact you receive a medal is far more relevant than the number of teams in the competition (which as far as I know has never been a factor in a tournament’s legitimacy) OGBC1992 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes per above. Dr Salvus 21:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, a runners-up medal for the Community Shield isn't a 'participation medal', like a fun run, or a 'well done for turning up' medal, by the same token that any runners-up medal isn't, despite losing any final being the equivalent of coming second out of two. The Shield is a super cup, not an invitational tournament, that you need to properly qualify for.OGBC1992 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A Humble Request

Hello everyone, I'm new here on this platform. Here on a particular page related to Indian football, Mohammedan SC (Kolkata), Mr. User:Debankan Mullick made a ton of edits, removing important data, records, file–images, citations and others, without mentioning edit summaries. According to me (who, within a year or more than that, contributed neutral data, references, and things related to the club seriously), those edits (few of those, are really acceptable; others are synonymous of vandalism) predominantly made the article poor, inappropriate, and "damaged".

Examples of vandalism:

1. The club doesn't have its separate statistics article ; but the user removed the club's all data about RUNNERS-UP finishes in honours section. Also, the current honours section format is wrong.

2. The user also removed reliable references, notes, and other items singlehandedly.

3. Also removed club RECORDS, which were important, and added by me with proper citations. Its horrible that, Now they all are vanished.

4. Also removed data in History section and the user too removed clubs matches against notable opponents. Simply, all citations related to those, gone forever.

5. The User removed OTHER DEPARTMENTS section (beside men's football section; women's football, hockey, cricket, futsal), and all the data and citations gone.

& MANY MORE

That's why — I'm requesting all of you, if possible, PLEASE take a look on those happenings, and fix/restore all necessary data and references, to make the article "healthy". Thanking all of you a lot at the end & keep smiling :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billjones94 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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. Disputable death date.
• Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
• Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
• Jozsef Eisenhoffer aka Joszef Aczal (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 German wikipedia has citation to an Austrian newspaper report of his death which I find unreadable, I can only make out he died on the 'Ostfront' (Eastern Front).
• Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
• Karl-Richard Idlane (Estonia) - Death cause and death dates (both in 1942) disputable.
• Karl Kanhauser (Austria/Czechoslovakia) - German wikipedia states without citation he was drafted into the German army towards end of WWII and deployed to Yugoslavia where he was reported missing, no final year given.
• Franz Krumm (Germany) - There is a link to the German Volksbund website but it does not directly connect to his details and I lack expertise to interrogate the site.
• 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)
• Artur Marczewski (Poland) - his Polish and German wikipedia articles state without citation he disappeared in January 1945 following Red Army advance into Poland, where he had been working for the Germans as a factory official.
• 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/Germany)
• Otto Martwig (Germany)
• Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
• August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
• Alberto Nahmias (Greece) - death circumstances disputed; his English article gives two different years of death in 1980s without source. His Greek wikipedia biography states he was arrested by the Germans in 1942 because of Jewish origins and further trace was lost, possibly because of being put to death, although also said to have emigrated post-war. Can someone find sources that settle this? The nearest named individual recorded from Greek Jews listed in the Testimony Pages of Yad Vashem is an Alberto Nachmias (sic), born in Greece, died at Auschwitz, age given as 42 but no birth or death date given. However out of the estimated 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust only 4.5M are known to Yad Vashem.
• Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war. In Croatian wikipedia, he is stated with citation to have been executed following Communist seizure of power in Croatia with 'date of execution' stated unknown, though the infobox gives a precise date of 27 May 1945 and death place as Zagreb.
• 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 Allied invasion of Normandy.
• 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.
• Fyodor Rimsha (Russia) - Stated without citation in English and Russian wikipedias to have died in siege of Leningrad, allegation not supported by cited sources Olympedia and Russian language Profile, the latter of which states his fate after 1914 "is unknown".
• Holger Salin (Finland) - No decisive death date in most wikipedias. Although Finnuser reported a newspaper report states only he was killed in an accident, his German wikipedia article states that after his last international match (1943) he "fell..in the Continuation War" [term given to Finland's hostilities with the Soviet Union over 1941-45 in concert with Germany] in '1943 or 1944'. I do wonder if he was serving in the Finnish Armed Forces though. (Accidents as well as combat killed a number of players already on the list.)
• 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.
• 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?
• 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
• Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
• 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 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) 19:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A.C. Monza FA candidate

A.C. Monza has been a FA candidate for three weeks, with almost no comments or reviews. I would appreciate it if someone took the time to give a review :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:NewAccount2770

Has been on a hefty vandalism spree, if any admins are about. Seasider53 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked - if you can please revert the changes. GiantSnowman 17:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Positions per round (again)

We had two relatively recent discussions (here and here) about the addition of positions per round tables to league-format articles. The general consensus was that there should not be position per round tables in these articles. However, I think that it would be a lot easier if all league season articles (or at least the ones in the big 5) had the same format. If so, do we get rid of the tables on 2021-22 La Liga, 2021-22 Serie A, 2021-22 Ligue 1 and other leagues that have them, or add them to the leagues that don't? https://www.bdfutbol.com is a source where you can view all of the league tables by matchday, and also has 4 leagues that do not have position per round tables (Premier league, bundesliga, Primera División RFEF and segunda division RFEF), which saves it from the WP:OR discussion. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If the consensus was to not have them, it seems pretty cut and dried. Besides, it wasn't just the original research that was the concern, it was that the rounds often get out of sync (because of postponements), so it doesn't provide a true reflection of a team's performance. Seasider53 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I mean, what the heck "round number" would this table relate to? I mean sure, you could replace the "round numbers" in the header with meaningful dates, but a column headed 31 January still wouldn't give the context that teams had played anywhere between 23 and 28 games...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. If we don't need them on the premier league article, should we get them off of all of the other articles? And if it doesn't work for the premier league because of the covid postponements that happened, should we add one for the bundesliga? Should we just leave them as they are? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Postponements aren't only because of COVID. For example: 2019-20 two matches postponed due to rain, 2017-18 a few postponements, 2016-17 rescheduled match, etc. --SuperJew (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's my point. Should we only do them for seasons without postponements? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If there has ever been a season with no postponements at all then never mind my hat, I will eat my sofa :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Do matches that were abandoned for reasons like crowd trouble or bad weather for which a result was still given (such as a forfeit or the score the match was at when the thing happened) count? If so, 2021-22 Bundesliga would like to take you up on your offer.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to say I don't follow German football closely, but this seems to refer to two matches being postponed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I've got it! The Eredivisie! Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

All the issues of postponements (and teams playing on different dates) is exactly why we shouldn't be using this made up position by rounds tables. This is the third time we're discussing it, can we just remove them, citing the multiple discussions/consensuses against them? And if people disagree, direct them here and if they edit war over it, then report them to WP:AN3. We won't ever get the issue resolved unless we remove the offending tables. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So, get rid of all of them?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be the overall consensus. These tables may look pretty (or they may not, taste is subjective), but matches being postponed or otherwise played out of order on a fairly regular basis leads straight to a WP:OR argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. Execute order 66.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

To that end, should Module:Sports rbr table be sent to MfD/TfD for promoting WP:OR? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should go that far (this consensus is only for football articles). Also, are we keeping the position per round on club season articles? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would believe we are not keeping any of these types of tables. As subsets of league tables, club tables would fail the same WP:OR argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The 2021-22 La Liga one (source: [13]) does not give the team positions in relation to the round number: on matchday 19, the source says Barcelona is in 7th yet the article says they are in 8th place. And the round numbers have jumbled up slightly as well. Otherwise: the sources used in other articles and beyond keep changing so there is no actual proof these figures are right unless you archive the URLs as they appear or find an as it stands table at these dates of completed matches. If you look at this table, you can see every team has played 18 times but these records are for how the table would have looked if all results were the same and everyone played with the original schedule. That looks wrong factually due to 6 out of the 10 fixtures had to be rescheduled. If the positions by round table was to be included in the recent Premier League season, these figures would not match the table I provided, e.g. Manchester United would be 6th in reality instead of 4th in the false worldfootball.net table. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: If you're going to remove the positions per round section (which is fine per this consensus), you should do it systematically, not just go to the three seasons I brought as an example in this discussion ;) --SuperJew (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I was working on it by going through the list at Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Sports rbr table, but I ran out of time last night. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of association football articles that use this module (not to mention any other sport, which I am not touching), and not all of them use the module to list places by round. Some of the transclusions only list actual results (e.g. W-D-L) and not positions, so it will take some time to complete. When I finish, I will gladly accept payment in beer and donuts. (≧▽≦) — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

some of them work on old-fashioned hard coded tables :/ --SuperJew (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW is our consensus also to remove "Results by round" on club season pages (like here)? -- SuperJew (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And is it to only remove tables for seasons with postponements (in theory, they should be the only ones violating WP:OR)? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a single argument that these aren't OR even on the season articles, so should be culled. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone started removing the tables from articles? This discussion might be a tad hypothetical. Seasider53 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've done a few and Jkudlick has done 1. Haven't seen any others. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean get rid of all of them, or just the WP:OR articles? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

remove from all articles. Having in some will lead to people want to add them in others for consistency. --SuperJew (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've removed in the meantime from the Big 5 European men's leagues. (And also cleaned-up assists while I was at it). This might lead to more feedback. --SuperJew (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to work my way down the UEFA league coefficient, then take a look at other continents. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW This is still being added to current season articles such as here.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

jay spearing

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Spearing&oldid=prev&diff=1098431847 pretty sure liverpool should be listed in his list, thats what we do for every other player who sign for a team with the intention of playing for their reserve team as a player/coach not doing it for sparing would be the odd one out so unless we decide that eliminate it for every player who signed for a team as an u23 player despite being in their 30s... its been happening a lot recently. the editer just seem to be strubborn, plenty of young players sign for a team, play in their reservers, and then never actually end up playing for the first team this is no different.Muur (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree - what if they have an injury crisis and he is called to the first-team? He is contracted to Liverpool, not the Academy - the fact the club intends to utilise him with the Academy set-up is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 14:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - how about Derby County's team of newbies in January 2021? Only two of the starting eleven had played in the first team before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

he'll probably play in the efl trophy for the u21, and might play for the first team alongside some young lads in the efl cup which would count as a first team appearance.Muur (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Chancel Mbemba

looks like hes 6 years older than he claimed he is [14] Muur (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This has already been addressed in his article and has been the subject of some debate for approximately 9 years now. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Federico Gatti

When the article was being reviewed, the reviewer put Template:Lang-it in the name of the leagues he's played. Is it actually needed? If not, please removed them, I don't have my PC now. Dr Salvus 10:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Squad lists: Transfers during tournaments

What's the etiquette regarding squad articles - e.g. UEFA Women's Euro 2022 squads - when a player has changed club over the course of the tournament in question, as (e.g.) Emma Koivisto has? Thanks. OGBC1992 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the club a player was last able to play for prior to the start of the tournament should be listed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 155#Updating club info on national team squads. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It's not really related, as one is about squads called-up for a specific tournament - the page doesn't change over time, while the other is a rolling updated section. --SuperJew (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@OGBC1992: As it says in the lede of the page The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament.. --SuperJew (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for pointing that out - had missed it somehow. OGBC1992 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agon Begu?

I found a interesting claim on KF Vushtrria's article. It says that a club "legend" by the name of Agon Begu broke FIFA records while at the club. However, I can't find any sources that mention him or any record-breaking at the club at all. Is there anyone familiar with Kosovar football who can shed some light on weather or not the claim is true, or if this person even existed? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have been added by an IP (dif). I'd remove the claim as it's unsourced. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did. That Kent University IP's only other edit was to change a name in Brentford's squad, whcih was reverted a bit quicker than this one... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Southampton FC away strip

Does anyone fancy drawing this for the club/season articles? See: https://www.southamptonfc.com/news/2022-07-04/away-kit-announcement-southampton-football-club-4-july-2022. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is why I'm a Red, not a Saint :) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Flags in season articles

Am I right in remembering there was some policy about not having flag icons next to clubs in season articles? example. They weren't in last season's articles but they're being included in every club's season articles this time. I don't see why an English player moving from an English club to another English club needs two flags to assist the reader. It makes sense if it's a foreign club but why is it needed for a club in the same league? It's just the lack of consistency that annoys me, these season articles seem to change every year based on pretty much nothing. EchetusXe 13:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Only for foreign clubs i would say aswell. Kante4 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Are any flags really necessary? The player is representing the club and not their country in the context of those articles. It's definitely overkill to have like 10,000 England flags on an article like that though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

List of international tournaments won by Indian football clubs

Is this article necessary? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say definitely no. Pointless fandom list. Especially as most of the article is examples of Indian teams being invited to other countries' cup tournaments, not continental level matches (which would have a way higher chance of being notable). Joseph2302 (talk)

AfD started here. Anyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Player demoted to B team during pre-season

Where to put a player that has been demoted to a B team, i.e. he's training with them, during pre-season: move him to the B team article, or put him under "Other players under contract" in the first-team article? SLBedit (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly is this player? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Two Benfica players: Gabriel and Taarabt. SLBedit (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Squad template for VfB Oldenburg

Hi. Could someone please create a squad template for VfB Oldenburg? They've been promoted to the fully professional 3. Liga for this season. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

done --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks, SuperJew. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Full fixture list

See 2022–23_Manchester_United_F.C._season: I'm sure I've read somewhere on our project talk page relatively recently that the full fixture list should not be visible at the start of the season unless something has changed regarding that content. Related articles also have their fixture list in full as well yet I don't see the full list of fixtures for this article at present. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it was something with copyright but that changed a few years ago. I have no problem with all fixtures shown. Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct. There was a claim by Football DataCo a few years ago that all the English and Scottish league fixtures were their intellectual property, so we couldn't publish them. That turned out to be unenforceable outside the UK, and ultimately a spurious claim. Nothing wrong with posting all the fixtures right here and now. – PeeJay 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any point in having the full fixture list? Not least because lots of it will become incorrect in time due to matches being moved for TV schedules, Europa League meaning matches are moved to Sunday, and possibly other scheduling clashes like the FA Cup. We shouldn't be presenting the entire fixture list as fact, when a large chunk of it will be changed at points in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with publishing the fixture list. Sure, some matches might get re-arranged, but those can be amended. The list is correct as it stands and it seems a bit heavy-handed to not show any sort of fixture list at all just because some games might get re-arranged. Fixture lists get published in full in books like the Nationwide Football Annual and club programmes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's not even correct as it stands, as all six of their games (11/18 Sep, 8/15/29 Oct, 5 Nov) following Europa League rounds will be moved to a Sunday (or possibly Monday) and that's even before Sky stick their oar in. For a team like this lot, it might be better to show "week beginning" instead of an actual date until they're known for sure? Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I miss the old days when games only got postponed if it was pouring with rain or snowing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If the official FA/entity published a full list, I think it's only appropriate for us to show the full fixtures. We go by what information we have at hand now, not by what may possibly change in the future. Per WP:CRYSTAL, a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified (which is our case). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

... except that we know it's actually wrong! I think the approach used in 2022–23 Leeds United F.C. season is better, where only the few upcoming fixtures are shown, and they're updated as required. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not wrong as things stand. Those are the dates the games are scheduled for. They might be moved by a day, but it's not helpful to remove the entire fixture list just because one game might be played 24 hours later than originally scheduled. – PeeJay 11:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I only like to see a few games at a time, with fixtures subject to change it's easy to mess things up and have incorrect information on the page. Govvy (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Like said above, no reasons not to show the full list (i like to see it, but what we like or not does not count). Moved matches can easily been shown as that. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

GAR notices

Cambodia women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Madagascar women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Mauritius women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Novels about association football

For your information I have created the Category above, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion

I know there's info at the top of the WikiProject, to help readers avoid the confusion. But honestly, an RM should be considered to re-name it Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football. Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, an umbrella for both the 'association' & 'gridiron' versions of the name. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That would break thousands of links in e.g. historical comments which link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. And makes it harder to find this WikiProject, if people have to go through a disambiguation page to find this project. Seems fine as it is right now, very clear how to find the other "football" WikiProjects. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned, it's a suggestion. I've no intentions of opening up an RM on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get much support from this project to do so, but feel free to start such a discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide one good reason to change the name? – Elisson • T • C • 15:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

While I don't feel there is a major need to make the switch (I've seen some but not an extreme examples of confusion), the fact that the wikipedia article for football is an umbrella article for all the codes and the article for association football is at that title would probably make for greater consistency. I feel keeping it at the current title is fine as I don't think there is much confusion, but I wouldn't stand in the way of a switch to WikiProject:Association Football if there was a consensus. RedPatch (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be against a switch, the vast majority of the world know it as football and I would argue a case of WP:AINT because I don't see a group of people complaining its causing confusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Some Monday morning amusement

This AfD has just been closed as "keep" after being open for 13 years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow! GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, I don't think we ever saw that coming. – PeeJay 11:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Positions by round and season progress

Hi all, I want to ask. Is it necessary to put season progress and positions by round in 2022–23 Liga 1 (Indonesia) like this and this edit? I'm asking about this because I previously put this in 2017 Liga 1 (Indonesia) and it was deleted because there was no source. But Fau Tzy insist to put it since he was editing without an user. Please enlighten me. I don't want to engage in edit war. Pinging Mattythewhite, GiantSnowman. Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

2007–08 UEFA Cup#Knockout stage

they have bolton vs sporting listed wrong, they put a 1-0 win for bolton instead of a 1-0 win for sporting. it was 1-1 at bolton and 1-0 for sporting in portugal.Muur (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where you see an error, I can't find it. No matter that, you can correct errors yourself, you know. – Elisson • T • C • 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no such error in that section of that article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Barassi Line

Some additional input may be required at the Barassi Line page. More association football knowledgeable editors, could really be of some help. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this article is about association football/soccer at all- soccer is mentioned once in the article. It seems to be entirely about Aussie rules and rugby league/union. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't seem relevant to soccer at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I see, WP:RUGBY would be more suitable. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

or WT:AFL --SuperJew (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Didier Lamkel Zé

Trying to get more eyes on Didier Lamkel Zé – it's getting a high volume of unsourced IP edits. I've requested page protection as well. Perfect4th (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 Juventus F.C. season

Can someone explain to me why players either who have been booked or sent off should not be included into football match infobox? This is common practice used until previous season. During League matches cards are reported as well as, including Cup matches and European competition, especially for a club season. This is what I've always noticed for years. Barcelona v Juventus report do include cards. Why user @Dr Salvus: is preventing me from diplaying this information? Since the beginning user @Mediocre Legacy: added them, as we are used to it. Now seems to be impossible. Island92 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would include red cards but definitely not yellows. We don't have to include everything that is related to match (e.g. we don't include starting lineups which are far more significant than bookings). Spike 'em (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would include everything, along with penalty missed. I remind you that is a club season, not a general football article as Champions League knockout phase for example. In that case only goals are needed. Island92 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's listed on the template as goals, so only goals should be included. Penalty misses are almost goals, so maybe fine, but red and yellow cards are not goals, and shouldn't be listed in the goals section of a template. If people really think yellow and red cards should be listed, adjust the underlying template to have a separate parameter for it, but it's nonsense to list red and yellow cards under the goals parameter, as people are doing at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is exactly that. To many users tend to add cards as a normal practice, especially for these articles. They have made a habit of it, including me. Consistency with old seasons play a role in it. Island92 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph above; the parameter is for goals, not cards. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and penalty misses aren't goals either, so they also shouldn't be included. – PeeJay 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe red cards could be added but no yellows and penalty misses. Parameter is called goals and that's what only should be there. Kante4 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Penalty misses 100% should not be in there. Whatever next - disallowed goals...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Goals are nice things to have; penalty misses are not. Cards (red or yellow) are definitely shameful. If a parameter in {{Footballbox collapsible}} is named |goals1= or similar, there is only one value which it may hold - anything else is overloading. If it is desirable to indicate misses, cards and anything else, fresh dedicated parameters must be added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to see that that article is upholding the usual standard of such articles by having two sentences of prose and then endless tables and accessibility-contravening collapsed templates -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I really wish we could dispense with those collapsible tables, but unfortunately the mob who have chosen to ignore all rules have more sway just now. – PeeJay 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Then, I want to use tables (like I've done at 2020-21 Juventus F.C. Under-23 season) rather than footballboxes, having also understood it's aesthetically better than that. Will I be able to do it without seeing Island92's opposition? Dr Salvus 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care about Island92's opposition, to be honest. They're only one person, and like you say, there's a good argument for using tables in the way you suggest. – PeeJay 15:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Especially when Island92's argument is essentially "we did it incorrectly before, so need to continue doing it the same incorrect way". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I'll then create the tables for league, cup and Champions League. And may change the tables of the transfer market. Dr Salvus 16:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Charlton Athletic edit war

Could an admin please take a look at an apparent edit war on Charlton Athletic F.C. - 3RR being repeatedly broken, it seems. Paul W (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• IP causing the issue, I have partial blocked them from that article only. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Black Kite. Paul W (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 Queen of the South F.C. season + questions

@Rusty1111 is adding fan blogs and links to photos of the games to the Report sections. I'm removing them as they are unreliable and unnecessary only for @Rusty1111 to revert my edits. Can someone warn him that his edits are against consensus before it's 3RR time? Dougal18 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think we had season articles for clubs not in fully professional leagues. Maybe that changed since I last looked. Gricehead (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I reverted them again, and mentioned it on their talkpage. We can have season articles for non-FPL clubs if they pass WP:GNG, which it's not clear this one is. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the season article were to pass GNG, of which there's no evidence as yet, I wouldn't have a problem with an external link to the fanblog in question, and another to whatever site the pictures come from, but not individual links for each match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As with a similar comment I made above, it would be nice at some point to see more than two sentences of prose in the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sérgio Oliveira

Have honestly no idea where the Turkish media got that full name from, but the correct version is the one that now stands. Here, have this google search with tons of results yielding "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira", only the Turkish related ones have that invented nonsense (https://www.google.com/search?q=sergio+miguel+relvas+de+oliveira&rlz=1C1GCEU_pt-PTPT906PT906&oq=sergio+miguel+relvas+de+oliveira&aqs=chrome.0.0i19i355j46i19j0i19i22i30.4393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)...

Attentively 193.137.135.2 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure his full name isn't "made up by the Turkish media", not least because it's listed here. In Portuguese names, they use two surnames (maternal and paternal surname), so in "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira", Miguel would be his middle name, Relvas his maternal surname (mother's surname), and Oliveira would be his paternal surname (father's surname). Though in common usage in non-Portuguese speaking countries, people tend to just write the person's paternal surname, which would be Oliveira. So the name "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira" seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese name may explain this better than I did. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

He's referring to Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira, with the extra "Gonçalves Pereira". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. However... The source cited in the Sérgio Oliveira page for the longer version, "Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira", added with this edit, is Galatasaray's official announcement of his signing, financial details, etc to the Turkish Stock Exchange. And if you search FC Porto's website for the same name, you'll find it used in a couple of official documents, one and two are the ones I found. So I doubt it is "invented nonsense". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Guessing again, but the extra two names are probably his grandparents' surnames, as Portuguese name#Number of names suggests that some people use 4 surnames (grandparents' surnames and both parents surnames). So may well be his actual official name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

More than likely, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, if it's done again i won't oppose then. Thanks for your time, sorry for any inconvenience. --193.137.135.2 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Height

Should it be in centimetres or in metres? Dr Salvus 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Feet and inches.Spike 'em (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em We're not Americans. Dr Salvus 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Nor am I, and I'm 5 ft 8 in tall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First, we are talking about the mesure to use in our articles on non-American players. Second, I dislike imperial units, I'm 1.82 m tall 6 ft 0 in.

I would go with metres. Feet and inches in countries where this measure is used (US, etc.). Kante4 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

metres, if using metric. GiantSnowman 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We're not Americans that is one thing I'm very happy to agree on. Spike 'em (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends what the sources say, if the sources are in ft in, we should use that, and vice versa. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This was settled long ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Consensus#Height. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to which should be the primary unit (i.e. which is presented first in the infobox)? Per MOS:UNIT, feet/inches for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US or UK, and SI (metric) units for all other articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That certainly explains why I spotted this edit was changing the order of the measurements because I have seen that the player is Irish which I thought he was born in the UK. I agree with metres, also pointing out this edit which caused a mistake because the units at the time were "cm". I remember that mistake because I used a trout with TW for a reminder that someone did something silly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

How it is reported, I guess? Not quite sure. You could put both, if it is reported on that way. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. See what I posted above: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Consensus#Height. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If formatted correctly, it should show the 'other' way in parentheses beside whichever you enter as the primary input. Crowsus (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bolding teams in cup competitions

Hey, Gro456 (talk · contribs) added bold(s) to teams in the DFB-Pokal in the footballboxes. What do you say? Bold, no bold. Kante4 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Eliminated teams should not be bolded. The first version is correct. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Kante4 (talk · contribs) I didn’t just add a bold image, I just deleted it. In the past, there was a thickening of the teams that dropped out. Gro456 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't see the value of doing that. @Nehme1499: So you mean the second version (of the 2 i linked) where none team is unbolded? Just to clarify as your comment somehow supports both. ;) Kante4 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, bad idea. Then, why aren't there the numbers of the teams' tiers? Dr Salvus 18:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The first version is the correct one. It has the losing teams in normal script, and the winning teams bolded. In the first match, for example, Karlsruher SC is bolded whereas TSG Neustrelitz is not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm well trained in seeing who won a match by virtue of seeing who scored the most goals between the two clubs. Maybe I'm old school. Seasider53 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

EFL Championship league table as of 30 July 2022

Apparently, for whatever reason, the EFL and the BBC websites as well as other external links including Sky Sports plus the ITV4 highlights program as seen by me are displaying the tied teams on league record in this order instead of alphabetically. Unsure why Swansea is the best team out of those with the 1-1 draws but that's how the table is displayed. The teams who recorded 0-0's are displayed in alphabetical order though. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Swansea and West Brom are ahead on virtue of away goals. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just by following the rules for classification criteria, point 6 is the point where teams get separated. Same happened last season [15] and [16]. It is probably correct that I had changed the ordering of some of the teams in line with the source given instead of the alphabetical ordering which the other 8 points are all equal. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion archive

I seem to be the only editor who bothers to move closed AFDs from the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves to the archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive, and with a) an increase in the number of AFDs and b) me becoming busier in real life and spending less time editing, it's becoming somewhat of a chore. If anybody wants to lend me a hand then I wouldn't say no... GiantSnowman 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a maintenance category for this? If so, then I'm in when I get the time. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - I do it all manually, just going through the old AFDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves and moving the closed ones to the archive. GiantSnowman 17:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

{{Win-loss record}}

Does anyone who's better at templates than me know a way to make this template display an output in the order W-D-L? If you look at Chloe Kelly#Arsenal, 2015–17, this template has been used to create the output "a 10–4–2 record", but what's actually been entered is 10 wins, 2 draws and 4 defeats. The template automatically puts it into the order W-L-D, presumably because it was created by an American, but for European football we would want it to show in the order W-D-L, because that's the standard format that people are familiar with and understand. I asked on the template talk page but don't anticipate getting a response there any time soon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

the code is quite simple and as things stand, no. I'll have a look at how other templates do this to see how to make this template more flexible.Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess we could always write it as {{Tooltip|10–4–2|10 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses}} (10–4–2). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What about Bobby Duncan?

Surely Bobby Duncan (English footballer) is notable as he has played 1 game in the FA cup? Dwanyewest (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: WP:NFOOTY does not apply anymore. Feel free to create his article if you feel he passes WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Draft:Bobby Duncan (English footballer) page, what is up with the infobox? Why is it so wide? There isn't a long team name causing it to be stretched. RedPatch (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This often happens in drafts for some reason; it fixes itself once it's published in the main space. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks. RedPatch (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

looks fine on my computer screen --SuperJew (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A single (covid-affected) game in the FA cup against non-league opposition wouldn't pass the old NFOOTY anyway. Spike 'em (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say he just about scrapes through GNG. The BBC piece about his being mentally bullied isn't routine coverage, and the Liverpool Echo piece is pretty in-depth.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

He is certainly a interesting character. I haven't seen a Youth career infobox section looking like that before... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Duncan was apparently one of nine Derby players in the starting eleven against Chorley who were making their senior debut in that match. Also relevant: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 155#jay spearing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Passes my interpretation of GNG, although others disagree.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources are significant? GiantSnowman 21:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote on this talk page

@FAdesdae378: please provide a rationale for removing the hatnote on this page. You said it is against guidelines – what guidelines are you refering to? You say it is on the main page, yes that is true. But it is not a valid reason to remove the hatnote from this talk page. It clearly serves a purpose as a few editors arrive at this talk page directly and may confuse it for related WikiProject talk pages. – Elisson • T • C • 21:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of any other talk page that is hatnoted. The hatnote on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is useful enough for editors. FAdesdae378 21:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop with your non-answers. A user arriving directly at this project talk page will not see the hatnote on the project page. Since there is no drawback in keeping the hatnote on the talk page, revert back to the stable version. You not having seen a hatnote on another talk page is not a reason for removing it here. – Elisson • T • C • 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Please give me an example of a talk page that is hatnoted. Also please give me evidence that users often arrive directly at this page. FAdesdae378 21:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to provide you with anything. You on the other hand need to provide a reason for why your change in any way improves the encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Having a hatnote here takes up space. Users can find the hatnote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football by clicking "Project page" in the top left. FAdesdae378 21:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another non-answer. I'm convinced that you simply don't want to WP:LISTEN. I have replaced the hatnote and admonish you not to remove it without consensus here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the hatnote is useful. We have an example of less than a month ago where a user came to post here and it was actually meant for another WikiProject. So clearly, the page can be mis-identified and thus the hatnote can help identify the correct page which is the purpose of Wikipedia:Hatnote RedPatch (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and other users have posted on here before asking questions about American football and Australian rules football. FAdesdae378 wants evidence that users often arrive directly at this page. Well, maybe it's not often, but it does happen periodically, so I see no harm in keeping the hatnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Many times I've seen (and also made) edits with the summary referencing a discussion on this page or requesting to further discuss at WT:FOOTY, which brings users directly here. --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in UEFA club competition records and statistics

This Indonesian IP and his socks insist in vandalising this article, related since the title with men's club competitions, reverting any explained edition (a.e. add FC Barcelona records in women's football and futsal althrough that was added in the more related UEFA competitions article and deleting without reason sourcered information about Chelsea, etc. This is not the first time which thus article id vandalised with the same modus operandi. Please check and block the page, thanks.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

International Federation of Football History & Statistics awards

I'm looking for advice on a collection of content that may be problematic. Category:International Federation of Football History & Statistics has a collection of awards given by International Federation of Football History & Statistics (IFFHS). Almost none of the articles cite any independent sources and given the superficial importance of IFFHS and my preliminary research into independent sources, I suspect most of these articles would fail the general notability guideline. That being said, someone has obviously spent a large amount of time on the articles with links to IFFHS and tables with the award winners.

I would appreciate input from others on the best approach to these articles. Should they be redirected or merged into the IFFHS article? Or taken to Articles for Deletion one by one? -Eóin (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest either delete or create a new article called List of International Federation of Football History & Statistics awards or similar and merge them all there. GiantSnowman 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed most of the content was already covered in the main article and there was excessive detail on many of the pages so I have redirected several of the articles to the main page. The redirected articles I could not establish notability for an independent article. Other awards that had (some) mentions online I tagged for needing independent sources or potential notability issues. I left a courtesy note on the editor's talk page who created these articles, User:GaiusAD. -Eóin (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The article must be explain the organisation's history and functions. Exist third sources about it (a.e. Italian Guerin Sportivo or Spanish Don Balon have covered it) and, as written in the NPOV article, its criticism is explained after. As the organisation publishes many lists and awards, its better made an article for this.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Help Desk question about Alex Mitchell (English footballer)

Would one of the members of Footy mind trying to help this user out. Their question seems to be about adding a column to a table in Alex Mitchell (English footballer). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nehme1499. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with a possible female Welsh football player

I'm looking at possibly creating an article for Gemma Lewis who is currently coach of the Wellington Phoenix Women's and NZ Under 20 women's teams. I'd say from the last couple of years and her coaching history, there is enough to meet WP:GNG but what I am finding difficult and interesting, is I can't find much on her playing career which I thought, would help the article more easily pass. Newspaper articles talk about her supposedly playing for Cardiff City and Chelsea as well as being a Wales international (or at least a junior one), but I just can't find anything that really backs this up. The best I've found is this from one Cardiff City reserves appearance. Am I just looking in the wrong places or has her playing career being "embellished" and just become a repeating rumour? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a thought - Lewis isn't a married name is it? Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Haven't seen anything in any source that indicates she has a partner and/or been married unfortunately. Had thought might be something like that as well.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything of significance. The Walesonline, if the same person, suggests her name has been Gemma Lewis since 2009 which would lead me to guess it's her original name. She has been known as Gemma Lewis since at least 2014, there is reference to her being appointed as a development officer on Page 37 here, this is corroborated by another link below, she talks about getting into coaching here from May 2020. There's some reasonable info on her as a coach from BBAFC, NZ Federationand FIFA which might give GNG. Koncorde (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't use it as a source, but playmakerstats has her featuring in two 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup games for Cardiff City, if that helps you find any sources. Gricehead (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Koncorde and Gricehead:, I think i'll still go ahead but not put down much about her player career. I believe her coaching will still allow her to pass GNG.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Doping claims in 1996 UEFA Champions League Final

The are an (re)opened discussion here for any interesed user.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Marlon Santos

1. Marlon (footballer, born 1995) (born April 1995), midfielder for Birmingham Legion FC
2. Marlon Santos (born September 1995), defender for Monza

Both are commonly known as "Marlon", with "Marlon Santos" also sometimes used. I don't think either can be seen as PRIMARY. What should we do? Moving them respectively to Marlon (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon (footballer, born September 1995) might be the only solution, and redirect Marlon (footballer, born 1995) and Marlon Santos to Marlon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Though, on second thought, I don't think the Birmingham Legion FC player passes WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Support the second option and disambiguate by motnh, seeing as the WP:COMMONNAME for both seems to be just "Marlon". And then create a DAB at Marlon Santos, and add them both to Marlon. And both pass GNG IMO, but if you want to AFD go for it.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlon (footballer, born 1995). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I found and added some sources to the nominated page. What do you all think? RedPatch (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please share your thoughts directly at the deletion page? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. rivalry - F.C. Barcelona Rivalry NPOV

Hi all, if anyone is able to do a neutral rewrite of Chelsea F.C. rivalry - F.C. Barcelona Rivalry that'd be great. It's currently written like a tabloid piece! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely deletion would be better: none of the sources seem to discuss a rivalry between the 2 teams in detail. Most of them are either dealing with the teams separately, or players trash talking the other team. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, these rivalry articles are getting a bit out of hand now. It seems like any combination of two clubs that have played each other a few times and where there's been the odd bit of handbags is now fair game for an article on their rivalry, which is daft IMO. Note also that the capitalisation of the title is wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I found an article in The Independent which might contribute towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A "rivalry" that is basically founded on one match (the 2009 semi-final)? That's just daft and it should go to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Burn with fire. Nothing in the article says anything about a rivalry and why this specific fixture would be notable, just that these two teams have played matches against each other (and, *surprise* wanted the same players). – Elisson • T • C • 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry if anyone on either side sees fit to comment. Spike 'em (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

All football clubs are rivals, otherwise you can't have leagues or cup competitions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted it as most of it was a direct copy of [17] which of course wasn't in the refs! Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of English Football Transfers

Came across this redirect which apparently redirects to Transfer (association football). Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to Category:English football transfer lists or to Template:English football transfers? And while we're on this subject, does anyone know where I can find a list of transfers for women in England? Or do we not have such a page on Wikipedia yet? --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's honestly such a strange redirect. Would it be standard to redirect something from the article namespace to a category or template? Because I can't see any particularly sensible target for that redirect otherwise. Jay eyem (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd honestly just delete it. No page links to it, and it uses incorrect capitalisation anyway. I don't think it's a feasible redirect to have. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean I got to it by searching in the searchbox "english football transfers", as I was looking for the category or template I linked above (was looking if there's a list of transfers for women in England). The average reader would probably not think first to search for "List of English football transfers summer 20xx" or "List of English football transfers winter 20xx–xx" --SuperJew (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we create a list of Lists of English football transfers and retarget it there? BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Alan Ball, Jr

As the wiki article on this prominent player and manager appears to be less frequently edited and visited than I would have imagined it could, I kindly draw the attention of Alan Ball afficianados, in particular those with access to biographical information, towards to a talkpoint I wrote a few days ago.

I would like to bring into the paragraph on his early life, pre leaving school, information from a Shropshire newspaper that sheds light on his years in Oswestry when his father was player-manager of Oswestry Town, as it is based on interview with the then 19 year old Ball, who gives retrospective credit to the experience he gained. This would add to and possibly amend what the paragraph currently says. However I notice the paragraph lacks any citations unlike the majority of others in the page, so have raised a citation need to encourage others to check up the accuracy. I envisage adding the information harmoniously into the paragraph when I have given others chance to scrutinise and provide citations. Talkpoint is headed 'Birth and Early Career with Blackpool' (subsection of Club career).Cloptonson (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Pre-contracts in infobox

For Pre-contracts we do not put them in the infobox until the contract actually begins correct? I had put it in hidden code to only show it once the contract begins, but got reverted on Kyle Hiebert as the user wants to show it. It should stay hidden right? It's already in the prose that a precontract starts on January 1. RedPatch (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, only show the spell once it actually starts. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it should stay hidden until they actually sign. GiantSnowman 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Reserve teams in the infobox pt. 2

See this 2020 discussion. Thoughts on adding an arrow and "(reserve)" next to reserve teams in the infobox? Filippo Ranocchia's infobox looks very weird the way it does right now. If he were to move permanently to Monza, the clubs would be listed as (numbers represent the chronological order): 1. Juventus, 2. → Perugia (loan), 4. → Vicenza (loan), 5. → Monza (loan), 3. Juventus U23, 6. Monza.

It would make more sense to put Juventus U23 between Perugia and Vicenza, and list it as "→ Juventus U23 (reserve)". This makes it clear that it is neither a loan nor a permanent transfer to the reserve team. Also, it makes sure that the subsequent loaned teams (Vicenza, Monza) refer to the parent team (Juventus), not the reserves (U23). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I support this for players going back and forth (if a player plays for the B team, then joins the A team without going back, I assume we would keep it as status quo?). I feel like I commented on this in a different previous thread before. It does make sense, especially for the ones like you showed where other loans get in the way. RedPatch (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's only necessary when a reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans. Under normal circumstances, the reserve team would just be displayed normally in the infobox without the senior team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok but I'd write (res.) rather than (reserves) not to get an umproportionally big table. Dr Salvus 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with both, but I'd rather use a tooltip as such for (res.). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think doing what I've done at Luca Clemenza? From 2017 to 2022, he was loaned 3948303 times. He spent the 2019-20 season with Juventus U23, what do you think having 2019–2020 → Juventus U23 (res.), with a narrow. I don't like the absence of a narrow (Idk why). Dr Salvus 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this solution, it looks much better with an arrow. I've been bold and have applied the same change to Filippo Ranocchia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not the case to do what Nehme is doing when he player debuted with Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For instance: let's see Nicolò Fagioli. Fagioli debuted for Juventus U23 in 2018 and for the first team in 2021. So having, "2018– Juventus" and "2018–2021 -> Juventus U23 (res.) wouldn't have sense. Nehme1499's change has been reverted by me. Dr Salvus 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Have changed idea. I approve his changes. Dr Salvus 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(I am one who often changes idea) I've had another thought and I've changed my mind (again):

If the player debuted first for the reserve team, there shouldn't be the first team first in the infobox. Dr Salvus 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If the player only played for the reserve team and not the parent team, the parent team should not be in the infobox. If the reserve team spell is sandwiched between loan spells, an arrow + (res.) is ideal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And if the player played for both?

• If the reserve team debut came first, arrow + (res)
• if the first-team debut came first (thing that can happen), there should be arrow + res. And the first team name should be put first in the infobox.

I wish I hadn't changed idea, there will be some work to do. I may start tomorrow. Dr Salvus 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the circumstance. If a player played in 2017–18 for the reserves, in 2018–19 on loan to team A, and in 2019–20 for the reserves, I would put all three with arrows, with the parent club as the first club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And what to do at Mohamed Ihattaren? In January, he was loaned to Ajax by Juventus. He only debuted for them after he had played for its reserves. How should his infobox look like? Dr Salvus 12:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is correct. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Had he debuted for Jong Ajax after playing for Ajax, how should it have been? Dr Salvus 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You would swap the two. I don't see the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also have added the tooltip to Jong Ajax. Dr Salvus 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because Jong Ajax is not Juventus' reserve team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuart1234 isn't respecting this rule at Adrien Rabiot. Dr Salvus 22:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule. The changes you made were ridiculous. The infobox is absolutely correct and easy to read as it is now. Stuart1234 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Rabiot's career with PSG B began in 2012 and ended in 2014. His career with the PSG first-team began in 2012 and ended in 2019. Why are you only proposing to display his career with PSG B in two spells but not the first-team? Stuart1234 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

PSG B do not loan players! Dr Salvus 23:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

PSG (the club) sends players on loan (which includes PSG B). His career at PSG B never ended when going on loan just as his career with the PSG first-team never ended. I just can't see why displaying PSG B twice in the infobox, in two different formats, helps the reader or is an improvement on how it is now. Stuart1234 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How does a reader make sense of why some of his appearances for PSG B are displayed in the same manner as the first-team but others have a little arrow and brackets next to them? Stuart1234 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree - we should not use arrows for B teams. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It depends. If the reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans, I would keep the arrow (for example at Luca Clemenza. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Newcastle related players

Hi folks, in the future if you see any IP editing with the edit summary "Time", it is likely all edits made are disruptive so we should revert them all upon checking the difference first. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

2020 DPMM FC season

Came across this while random article patrolling. One match was played and then COVID hit. Is there anything that should be done with pages like this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. GiantSnowman 19:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

On loan players

Can I please get input on Template:Chelsea F.C. squad. Sarr is out on loan, not left the club, should he be hidden with < !--- or removed completely in your opinion? Chelsdog is edit warring. JMHamo (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC) JMHamo (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

what difference does it make? Edit-warring over hidden text is utterly pointless. Spike 'em (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring is pointless, but standard is to 'hide' the player (so that when they return from the loan, they can be easily re-added). GiantSnowman 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree @GiantSnowman: that edit warring is pointless but I guess on Wikipedia these days, you can do what you want and not follow established standards JMHamo (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Interest in Article Sourcing Task Force?

Several years ago, this project was faced with a systematic deletion of thousands of completed unsourced BLPs when BLPPROD was introduced. I remember that we organized and worked tirelessly to sort through the completely unsourced BLPs and source the ones that could pass NFOOTBALL (which existed at the time). We are now faced with a systematic deletion of thousands of poorly sourced BLPs following the deprecation of NFOOTBALL. I find myself struggling to identify and prioritize poorly sourced BLPs to improve to GNG-level sourcing, and I thought it may be useful if we as a project start a task force to do so. I also think sharing of resources can be very useful as well. For example, Mundo Deportivo has a free digitized online archive here that is very useful in sourcing articles about La Liga footballers (particularly if they played in the Catalan region). I'm sure we have editors with knowledge of other useful and free archives that we could build into a database to help interested editors in this effort. Any interest? Anyone willing to get it started? (I'm technically limited, so I'm happy to take on various tasks, but I can't promise I'll organize or use the tools properly). Jogurney (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea. There are many notable stubs out there being nominated for deletion, and we need to improve the quality of our articles, rather than focussing just on quantity. GiantSnowman 08:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree! Though I don't know how much I will be able to contribute. Either way, just resources such as digital newspaper archives, lists of editors to contact for various regions, clubs, etc., would be very nice to have. – Elisson • T • C • 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can build out a database of sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. At the moment, most of the links are to statistics databases (not helpful for GNG sourcing), but we can add newspaper archives, etc. Jogurney (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the latest on notability/sports and mass deletion? There are so many ANI and RFCs, that I've kind of lost track what is going on. If anyone can point me in the direction of the latest pertinent discussions it would be greatly appreciated.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPORTCRIT is the current standard. Jogurney (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a great initiative, Jogurney. Going forward, I will try add sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've started a page (User:Jogurney/Association football BLP cleanup) that lists likely notable football biographies that appear to lack SIGCOV in their current state (I'm picking players that appeared at a FIFA World Cup finals or made 100+ appearances in La Liga or a similarly-covered competition). Please feel free to add or work on sourcing (and strike out sourced articles). Jogurney (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football → Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football – I suggest moving this page to avoid confusion with other WikiProjects about sports named "football". FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think association football is PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It would be a harmless and helpful clarification for those parts of the world where multiple codes of football are played by significant numbers of people, such as the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa. In those countries "football" does not mean the sport addressed by this project. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Multiple codes are played in the UK by significant numbers of people: Association football; Rugby League; Rugby Union, not to mention imported forms of gridiron. In south Wales, Rugby Union is very much the dominant code, just as Rugby League is dominant in Lancashire and Yorkshire outside the major cities. Then there are of course the codes played only in schools, colleges and universities, such as the Eton wall game. But if you simply say "football", it is the Association code that is universally understood. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not where I come from. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose seems very stable here with minimal confusion. PRIMARY also holds for me. Spike 'em (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it's apparent you're not from one of the countries I mentioned, where confusion is inevitable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose other than that one time, no one has ever actually confused this for anything but association football. so it doenst need changing cuz on one gets confused.Muur (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on the edit history of this page, there doesn't seem to be much confusion. It's quite rare that you see a discussion created about a different code of football on this page which would mean that editors looking for the American football/Canadian football/Australian rules football Wikiprojects know where to go. The project has also been static at this page for at least the 12 years I've been editing Wikipedia which again would suggest there was little confusion. The hatnotes at the top of the main project page are sufficient enough to direct users to the project they are looking for if this was not it. Pageviews for both the main project pages and their associated talk pages also suggest that association football is the primary topic. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would likely cause more problems than it solves. The suggested move is also clear case of WP:DISRUPTIVE rather than an honest attempt at solving a (non-)issue. – Elisson • T • C • 09:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  How could it CAUSE problems, and how is it disruptive? Using the name proposed here for Australian articles doesn't cause any problems. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hundreds of thousands of incoming links that would stop working for the first point, and it is my impression that the proposer is doing this for disruptive reasons following the edit war over hatnotes. Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  What Spike 'em said. The proposer got mad that they didn't get to remove the hatnote from the talk page because it actually is useful and doesn't have any downside to it, so instead they propose to move the project not to solve any potential confusion issues but rather to prove a WP:POINT. – Elisson • T • C • 13:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please consider the proposal on its merits, not on the basis of what you think about the proposer. That's obviously not how we are supposed to work here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have I not considered the proposal on its merits? My sole reason for my oppose was that it will cause issues rather than solve issues. That I pointed out the obviously highly disruptive behaviour by the proposer was not part of my reasoning for opposing. I am just tired of seeing dozens of contributors discussing this (in my view) non-issue instead of making meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 23:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment People are saying there is no confusion. I can assure everyone there IS confusion. I edit a lot of articles with "football" in the name, probably a majority of them about Australian football, but I also contribute here, and on Association football articles. Every time I see this one, I have to pause until I figure which "football" it's talking about. In Australia, after years of agonising debate, we came up with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), precisely because there IS confusion on this matter. No code there gets to use the name "football" alone. I would be interested to know of any of the oppose votes are coming from the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't about a mainspace article so I'm not sure how your experience of mainspace articles are relevant to the discussion (do you say there is a lot of confusion among people reaching this page?). I don't have a problem with a move from a consistency/confusion-reduction perspective (if I had known what I know today I'd probably have created "WikiProject Association football" instead of "WikiProject Football" back in 2005—or more likely it would have been the awful "WikiProject Football (soccer)" as the mainspace article was named at that time ...). But the miniscule improvement it would be compared to the administrative work and broken links a move would create is just not worth it for me. – Elisson • T • C • 13:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't say there IS A LOT confusion. That's obvious if you read what I wrote. It's provocative to misrepresent and exaggerate my position. In Australian articles, "Association football" is used. The use of the word "awful" there puzzles me though. How is it awful? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was a question from me. As your comment did not cover this page at all and only mentioned confusion regarding the mainspace articles (which is not relevant for this page), I wanted to know if you had any experience of confusion regarding this page. It has happened a few times but isn't frequent as far as I know, so that's why I asked. I, in retrospect, really hate the old use of football (soccer) both because of the parentheses and because it used an alternative term as disambiguator which wasn't following guidelines. – Elisson • T • C • 23:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Australian solution was to use soccer. (Note the Wikilink.) Soccer is probably the most common name for the game here. I'm not arguing for that for this global article because I know some people have a strong opposition to that name. (I still don't know why.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support – The title of this project should match the title of the article about the sport (Association football). All the other WikiProjects relating to codes of football use their full names (c.f. Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football), so why shouldn't this one? I'm not fussed if it doesn't move, but I think it probably should. – PeeJay 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support Per PeeJay. It would match the main article name, which is the same point I mentioned a couple of weeks ago when this was also brought up. Again like PeeJay, I'm not fussed whether it moves or not, but the consistency argument makes sense to me. RedPatch (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PeeJay, RedPatch and HiLo48. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PeeJay. Football itself is a general article about different types of sports, meaning that the community already decided that the term alone is too ambiguous and should not be used for any one type. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose the apparent WP:POINTy nomination; see the section regarding the removal and restoration of the hatnote on this talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Soccer" is the only football that matters and the most popular sport in the world. Dr Salvus 19:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you're just being facetious, but goodness me, what a poor take the first half of that sentence is. – PeeJay 20:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The entire comment is obviously unhelpful, and must be ignored by anyone wanting a sensible conclusion to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per PRIMARY. I suppose we could move it to soccer if American football fans are okay with their article moving to gridiron. Seasider53 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  PRIMARY doesn't really apply. If it did, we could move Association football to Football, but that would be ridiculous. – PeeJay 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Appears to be attempting to fix a problem that isn't really a major issue. There's a hatnote on the page taking you to the other Projects with one click. The others appear to be quite moribund as well - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football have both had one edit in the last two months, whilst Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football has had 35. This page has had over 800. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Or to paraphrase "The other sports are irrelevant". Yours is neither a helpful nor diplomatic comment. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You're putting words in my mouth there. This is a pretty standard metric at WP:RM - which page are most users looking for? Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but as an Australian I'd suggest the relative numbers for this page and the Australian one simply reflect the populations of fans involved. Some might argue that's perfectly fair anyway. I just don't like seeing minorities ignored. (Especially when I'm part of one.) But I won't fight hard. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose While I understand the reason for the possible move, I don't believe it is that big of an issue that it requires the disruption to do so. I believe it is adequately covered by the hatnote currently but wouldn't be upset if consensus did decide to change. I do however agree with Jkudlick that this is a WP:POINTy nomination from FAdesdae378, who going by the discussion above regarding the Hatnote, that this move suggestion is more about being disruptive and trying to win an arguement, than being beneficial.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose American checking in here (since it was asked for, apparently). Besides this being a clearly POINTy nomination, the most common form of "football" globally is association football. Any English speaker outside of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Ireland or South Africa would immediately recognize the term "football" as meaning "association football" as opposed to its various other codes e.g. American, Canadian, Australian rules, etc, and I think editors from those countries would share that view. Plus, in some of the countries where "football" does NOT usually mean "association football", the terms "soccer" and "football" are often still used interchangeably (this is true in the USA and Canada, and I've got to imagine it is true elsewhere). This proposal is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't really exist; articles where there is a primary code being used already just use the term "football" and link it to their given code. This change would create unnecessary pain of redirecting all existing links to various pages in the project namespace. As an aside, as long as we are using personal anecdotes here, I generally refer to the major codes here as "soccer" and "American football". Jay eyem (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparently, missing one instance of quotes has brought in the grammar police, so I've added quotes to the first use of the term "football" in my piece. Seems like selective reading, but whatever. Jay eyem (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to hope you can see the irony in the fact that you wrote "...the most common form of football globally is association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant contribution to the thread, not surprised that was your takeaway. Bugs you that an American disagreed with you, doesn't it? I've seen you go on and on for this particular topic before, so not sure why you are expecting this to go any differently. But please, feel free to respond to yet another person that disagreed with you with pointless observations, I'm sure that can only bolster your argument. Jay eyem (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WTF? I made a single, half humorous observation. You sunk the boot in. I found that a lot with soccer fans in Australia who couldn't handle the fact that the name "football" was already take when they wanted it all for their own use. Hey, I'm not obsessed with this issue. I can see the fans of the word "football" will win here. I just think truth, information, a global view, and logic are important. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol yes, the fact that I have seen you make this argument on several different occasions, and that you have responded to four other oppose votes in a day old thread, DEFINITELY leads me to believe you are not "obsessed" with this issue, sure. And spare the platitudes; pretty sure the "global view" on the matter would more clearly recognize "association football" as the code most clearly associated with the term "football". Or do you think only Anglo editors edit Wikipedia? Jay eyem (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point of that comment is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nor I with any of your responses to me so far, but here we are. I'd love to stay up and chat, but I really don't think that's a productive use of anyone's time so I'm going to sleep. Maybe don't respond to a bunch of comments you disagree with if it doesn't advance the discussion, even if it's uncivil, I guarantee that won't help your argument. Jay eyem (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: In case this goes through, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Renaming a WikiProject before moving any page. Also, given how WikiProjects have historically worked, it seems that a local consensus would be overriding of what people from completely different and unrelated projects think. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose': Football not meaning Association Football is mostly a US-exclusive phenomenon. On article space I would have supported the change, but not for a long-standing WikiProject to satisfy the concerns of local ambiguity of a single country. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't America only, the rest of the world call it football. A case of WP:AINT here I think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BlackKite - not a problem that needs fixing. GiantSnowman 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose If it ain't broken, don't fix it and per above. Kante4 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose seems very WP:POINTy to be honest. It's not causing an issue and moving it would cause far more problems than it solves. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FIFA World Cup results table

A few days ago, Fma12 changed the format of the FIFA World Cup results table without discussion (before, after). Same for other competitions such as the FIFA Arab Cup. Thoughts on these changes? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don' know which would be the problem so the changes were minimal in both cases: a sortable table and an item to count number of editions. I don't think a consensus has to be required for such changes. Fma12 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, I think it looked better with the alternating blue and white colours, as it made it easier to read. Also, I don't think the gold, silver and bronze medals are necessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the overkill with the icons and as a whole it's not an improvement, tbh. (Same was done at Women's FIH Hockey World Cup and Men's FIH Hockey World Cup and got reverted, btw, so i do think a (overall?) consensus should be reached before doing this changes at several tournaments in different sports). Kante4 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FMO, the flagicons on host cities/countries and the light blue addition are far more unnecessary than any sortable paramether I can add to those tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs)

I'm not a fan of either if I'm honest. I don't understand why we need medal images, or flagicons, or alternating colours. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The only reason why I added the medal images was because sortable paramethers don't allow to change background colors (probably a synthax I don't know is needed). Furthermore, I think football articles on wp are plenty overloaded of icons (per example on national teams honours just like this case) Fma12 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the before table, though could ditch the coloured rows. The separated sets of columns works well, medal icons in headers add nothing. Spike 'em (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the colours can be removed. Don't see any value. Kante4 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Supercup Toni Kroos

Hey, this discussion was pretty clear but Miha2020 (talk · contribs) (pinged so he can participate) keeps on adding the 2016 UEFA Super Cup to his honours, despite him not being in the squad. So, should we talk it all over again or does the consensus stand? Kante4 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

i said my cm here: User talk:Miha2020#Kroos and in summary of my edits in Toni Kroos history. real madrid site says 5!--Miha2020 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

this is different from messi's appereance in 2005 Supercopa de España. Kroos was in 2016–17 Real Madrid CF season. and all of 23 or 25 players got medals. that's clear.--Miha2020 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussions should take place on talk pages, not in edit summaries. de.wiki is not a reliable source and their conventions do not necessarily hold on en.wiki. Spike 'em (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a trophy he did not win. Had he been called up for the game, yes. Else, no. Dr Salvus 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Today's page move

Would this move be the sort of move which potentially should have been discussed first - while I was looking at the titles of the references alone they are half Marlon, half Marlon Santos. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that there are 2 players who are both sometimes called Marlon Santos. I think DAB at base name is a good and BOLD call by the mover, but the exact disambiguation for each individual player can be discussed. Feel free to discuss at WP:RM if you see fit.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this one probably should have gone through a RM, since it wasn't a 100% obvious move. It had been briefly mentioned above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Marlon_Santos, but that quickly became focused on whether it was an AfD candidate. I feel like in cases where two varieties of name are both commonly used, the full name (Marlon Santos) is better than just the single name (Marlon) as it's easier to find. RedPatch (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Both players are mainly known as "Marlon", and sometimes as "Marlon Santos". We could move Marlon (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon (footballer, born September 1995) to Marlon Santos (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon Santos (footballer, born September 1995) respectively, but I don't really think it's ideal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I hadn't heard of either prior to it being posted here last week, although for the April-born player, when I was improving the article, I came across this link, which showed that he wears "Santos" on his jersey, which had me considering doing a RM to Marlon Santos after the AfD concluded.. For that player at least, I think Marlon Santos is justified, the other one I've never looked at and Nehme is a better expert of the Italian league, so leaving that one at simply Marlon may be the better option. RedPatch (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the April guy, I see 52 instances of "Marlon", compared to 17 of "Marlon Santos". Soccerway, for e.g., also uses "Marlon". I hadn't noticed the shirt name, though. Feel free to open a RM if you believe the page should be moved to Marlon Santos (footballer, born April 1995), but it doesn't really help in making the disambiguator shorter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to be careful when constructing Google searches for comparison purposes: of your 50-odd instances of just Marlon, most don't refer to Marlon Santos, so it's no real surprise they don't include his surname. E.g. this one is the caption of a picture of Marlon Williams, an American footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that entry is part of the 52. If I'm not mistaken, the true number of results is shown in the last page (6, in this case). If I go back one page, it tells me that the results are 136. I'm guessing that the false positive with Marlon Williams is part of the 80 results which don't show Marlon the footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I get 55 on the last page rather than 52, all 55 of which show – the initial number is pretty meaningless – but most of them don't relate to Marlon the footballer. A baseball player, a drug dealer, a boxer, a Marlon Ramírez, this one doesn't seem to display the word Marlon at all, ... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Then idk how to get the correct results. I've enclosed "marlon" and "Birmingham Legion" in quotation marks, so it should only display results with those specific strings. Am I doing something wrong? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, RL got in the way. Even if it only displayed results with those specific strings, there's no reason why they should all apply to Marlon Santos. The Marlon Ramirez result is quite legitimate: it contains "Birmingham Legion" (FC Tulsa's previous opponent) and "Marlon" (an FC Tulsa player) and doesn't contain "Santos". And the last one I linked might have contained "Marlon" in one of the sidebars or dropdowns in the version Google found which had gone by the time it reached me? I can't think of a way to construct a search to pick up only results about Marlon Santos without the surname. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think sources considered that one of "Marlon (footballer, born April 1995)"'s surnames listed in his full name is "dos Santos" which is sourced from Soccerway. The former Barcelona one lists his name as Marlon on Instagram, suggesting that may be what he prefers to be known as. I don't have enough knowledge about the other one though.

This sort of thing reminds me that back in October 2018, Diogo Jota was moved to Jota (footballer, born 1996) which stayed as it was till March 2019 when, as seen from Talk:Jota (Spanish footballer) that Struway2 pointed out that Diogo Jota is certainly the common name such as what he calls himself here. That eventually got sorted out, in this case I would think the one born in September could stay put. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth place

Hi all, I was thinking that it might be good to standardise the colour used in tables for fourth place. Currently, both a pale yellow and a blue are used across different pages but I’ve recently seen something of a push towards the blue. Does anybody have any suggestions as to what to do here? Vesuvio14 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's wise to not overuse colours, and the tables will use tournament qualification colour coding and not placement finishing generally. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fourth place should only be coloured in tournaments with a 3rd/4th place playoff. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestion on which colour to use though? Vesuvio14 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

How about none? GiantSnowman 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with none, as this is compliant with MOS:COLOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather see none used for fourth (as 4th isn't a medal like Gold, Silver and Bronze) but did think current consensus was   for fourth place, as per this template. I have actually raised this issue before as I keep coming across it and find people edit warring on the use of the colour and the table designs. It would be good to get a confirmed consensus and add it here. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with having no colour for a fourth place finish. Teams/players do not get a medal for that. Kante4 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

None for above. Dr Salvus 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See my comment on /Archive 153#Are 4th place honors? before deciding on some general guideline without room for exceptions. – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I’d have to agree about removing any colour and removing it from honours; as you have said, fourth place isn’t usually given an award. However, as per Elisson’s comment, if there is a particular award then I see no problem with keeping it in those cases. Vesuvio14 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The colour, if specified, should be transparent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with general rule being to not have a 4th colour but can be used in situations like Elisson point out. I don't think the 4th place should be used in most tables though.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 04:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that this is sufficient consensus for the removal of colour for 4th place unless being used in such a competition where a team/players receive a fourth place award. Unless there are any objections, I will addd this to WP:WPFCONSENSUS soon. Vesuvio14 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me of course and I'm happy with that wording, maybe could use the example above too as to show when it is used.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 05:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

When can a player be considered of a new team?

Should it be when the contract is deposited or when the buying club officialises the deal? Dr Salvus 17:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

When reliable sources report the transfer as having been completed. Spike 'em (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

No, when the transfer window opens. The number of times the BBC reports in May that a player has signed for a new club - no, they have signed a contract, the transfer goes through 1 July! GiantSnowman 08:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

so we just ignore WP:V when we think we know best? Spike 'em (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we ignore errors in reliable sources. WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 09:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

John Williamson (footballer, born 1887)

The interest of those with particular interests in WWI history and the North East of England is drawn to the talk page of this article. The player - full name John Robert Williamson - who appeared inter alia for Aston Villa and Sunderland and was native of County Durham (Gateshead) - disappears from history at the end of the 1914-15 season but I believe I may have discovered a candidate for his identity - an identically named soldier who died of wounds in England in November 1915 and is buried at Silkworth churchyard, now in the suburbs of Sunderland. I have suggested lines of enquiry for those seeking confirmation in published sources as to whether or not they are the same man.Cloptonson (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not. The chap who died of wounds at Brighton War Hospital in November 1915 and was buried at Silksworth was aged 19. See FreeBMD deaths entry, Newcastle Courant 13.11.1915 one-line mention of death, North Star (Darlington) brief report of funeral. The English National Football Archive gives birthdate of 28 January 1887 (so age 28 in November 1915) and death year of 1943 for the footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I have just looked on Ancestry and everything points to the fellow from Gateshead (dob as Struway) living until 1943. Those don't mention football (coal miner in 1911 census) but everything adds up to be the same guy, and not a WWI casualty. I'll see if there is anything to tie in with the unfortunate soldier living elsewhere to double-confirm. Crowsus (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't a great paper trail but there's a 1901 census matching the full name, age and residence district in the BNA clip, so conformation its a different guy from the Gateshead footballer. Crowsus (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

is the player even notable if yoy struggle to even verify his existence this badlyMuur (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably not given the lack of info at present. This may go to Afd if others agree. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Struway2 Thank you for clearing that up. CWGC does not record his age. That definitely rules the soldier out as being the player.Cloptonson (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Results table - abandoned matches

Hi - how should I indicate an abandoned match in a page that uses Module:Sports results? The match is Chippenham Town v. Chelmsford City and the page is 2022–23 National League#Results table 3 - should I use |match_CHI_CHE=A-A - or should it be left blank? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume the match will be rescheduled and played at a later date, if so it should be left blank just like all other matches played later. – Elisson • T • C • 20:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletions and Wikidata

With the notability changes, there are / will be a lot of footballer bios going to AfD. Should there be an effort to copy the information to Wikidata, or do we consider WD just another external site that is somebody else's problem? Example: AfD Aug 12 Yusuf Osman Abdulahi, WD diff. (Disclaimer: I'm not into footy and don't have the time or inclination to do all this by myself.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not our problem, those sites are pseudo independent. Pages that are kept here may be deleted there and vice versa.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sub-sub-dividing by seasons?

What are people's thoughts about diving specific club sub sections up into individual seasons, like at Gavin Massey? Personally I think it's excessive and it puts pressure on articles to be made excessively detailed as time goes by. For example, Massey played a total of nine games for Watford, but the Watford subsection has 7 subsections of its own. I felt it necessary to break the Wigan Athletic subsection into individual seasons so the article remains consistent, but his time there was fairly mundane considering he played 166 games. It doesn't seem right having the Wigan subsection as one whole whilst Watford and Colchester are broken down into individual seasons and loan spells. What is the best approach? EchetusXe 14:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

With such little prose in those sections, they can be put together in one. Kante4 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that we need one sentence sections for seasons 2019-20 and 2020-21 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not everything needs to be a sub-section. GiantSnowman 19:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alex Scott (footballer, born 1984) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Alex Scott (footballer, born 1984) to be moved to Alex Scott (female footballer). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John Westwood (footballer) - players conflated?

I have reason to believe that two footballers may be conflated in this article. The Bristol Rovers footballer who was killed in 1917 is identified with William Howell Powell Westwood, born in Langley Green, Worcestershire particularly by the PFA in its Football and the First World War website. The identification is also supported in the Doncaster 1914-18 site. The player named by the article (John William Westwood) and the player killed in WWI had not only different stated given names but also different birthplaces. See talk page of article for my more detailed comments.Cloptonson (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Season to season

What kinds of clubs would season-to-season sections be good for? I have taken a little look at some lower table la liga clubs and it seems to be pretty standard. Should we add more, delete the existing ones or decide individually on each article by consensus? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't think what you mean by "season-to-season sections" - could you link to an example? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, here. Some of them are called season to season or something like that and some of them are just called “seasons”. (Sorry I can’t reply to your message directly, my phone isn’t letting me). Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, for England, pretty much every professional club (and some others besides) already has this as a separate list article rather than crushed into the main article. There doesn't seem to have been the same level of interest in doing that for Spain, not really sure why....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. So make them for spain or what? (Again, why did I think doing this on my phone was a good idea?) Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking deeper into it, it appears that nearly all Spanish clubs actually do have those pages (bottom of this page and have simply not bothered to take them off of the articles. Do we remove them?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

There's only about 30 'List of seasons' articles there including some women's clubs. It is more helpful to frequent readers of Spanish football (or at least one reader - me) to expect to find these on the articles of the smaller clubs as standard as a summary of their history, they have been there for at least a decade, and are discussed among contributing editors at the task force. Having them is far more useful than not. I agree if there's a list of seasons article it's not needed, but as I said there are not too many of those, the example you gave was Elche which does not have one so should keep their table. Crowsus (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Crowsus So if the information is just there in the season page, couldn’t you literally just copy and paste that section onto its own article? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda national football team

Hi,

I moved the kits from a gallery on the main page to Wiki:Commons, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams but my edits are continually reverted by @Chuckdisi who is not engaging in conversation (either through edit notes or the Talk page) to resolve the issue. Could somebody else provide some input as I've strayed beyond 3RR. Many thanks Felixsv7 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with not having them all listed, as WP:NOTGALLERY applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, if you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. For example, A.C. Monza provides sourced prose describing each of the kits shown. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, though can someone add the Commons link / clean up the section - as I am already beyond 3RR. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added the Commons link. Btw, the article is ridiculously undersourced. 90% of the prose should be outright removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be condensed and have the tables removed from the History section. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Chuckdisi has definitely violated 3RR. I think a temporary block is needed here. They are not engaging in any way (edit summaries, talk pages). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw they did it again so reverted and they just reverted me right back. Considering the User has 99.7% of their edits being this articled and only one time evidence of reaching out on a talk page (and it was to get help doing the edit that he is now warring about). I've reported them to WP:AN/3.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

was just about to come here to ask if somebody can report - I'm about to go away for a few days, and would block myself but I am probably INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 05:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been bold and have mass removed unsourced content and unnecessary tables. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I now see they finally used their talk page but said some not so nice things and have got themselves indefinite blocked and lost talk page privileges. So unless they sock, there shouldn't be any more trouble on that article now. Also Nehme1499 great work on the clean up, looks so much better now.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I 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. Disputable death date.
• Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
• Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
• Jozsef Eisenhoffer aka Joszef Aczal (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, I can only make out he died on the 'Ostfront' (Eastern Front).
• Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
• Karl-Richard Idlane (Estonia) - Death cause and death dates (both in 1942) disputable.
• Karl Kanhauser (Austria/Czechoslovakia) - German wikipedia states without citation he was drafted into the German army towards end of WWII and deployed to Yugoslavia where he was reported missing, no final year given.
• Franz Krumm (Germany) - There is a link to the German Volksbund website but it does not directly connect to his details and I lack expertise to interrogate the site.
• 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)
• Artur Marczewski(Poland) - his Polish and German wikipedia articles state without citation he disappeared in January 1945 following Red Army advance into Poland, where he had been working for the Germans as a factory official.
• 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/Germany)
• Otto Martwig (Germany)
• Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
• August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
• Alberto Nahmias (Greece) - death circumstances disputed; his English article gives two different years of death in 1980s without source. His Greek wikipedia biography states he was arrested by the Germans in 1942 because of Jewish origins and further trace was lost, possibly because of being put to death, although also said to have emigrated post-war. Can someone find sources that settle this? The nearest named individual recorded from Greek Jews listed in the Testimony Pages of Yad Vashem is an Alberto Nachmias (sic), born in Greece, died at Auschwitz, age given as 42 but no birth or death date given. However out of the estimated 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust only 4.5M are known to Yad Vashem.
• Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war. In Croatian wikipedia, he is stated with citation to have been executed following Communist seizure of power in Croatia with 'date of execution' stated unknown, though the infobox gives a precise date of 27 May 1945 and death place as Zagreb.
• 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 Allied invasion of Normandy.

Petit was killed in a bombardment after visiting a patient, who was a victim of an earlier bombardment. The date is wrong, it's 25 May 1944, place of death Liège or one of its suburbs (Angleur? He was born there as well). Source La Légia 30 May 1944 pages 2 and 3) Cattivi (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cattivi Thank you. I am not French fluent, please could you give me a translation of report on page 3 of the excerpt, in case there is information that could be added to the article.

Cloptonson (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not very French fluent either. But I don’t think there is much to be added. He was a very good defender, capped several times for Belgium, retired when he was still young and became a doctor. Petit was killed last Thursday. He still had many friends in sporting circles who will miss him. His brother Roger is mentioned. He was also a footballer with Standard but that’s not in this source. Cattivi (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

page 2 In Dutch, no date of death but it has Angleur as place of birth and died after visiting a patient. He became a memmber of Standard on 8 January 1925. Cattivi (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you anyway. I have added him to the list and amended/augmented his article using your source.Cloptonson (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• 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.
• Fyodor Rimsha (Russia) - Stated without citation in English and Russian wikipedias to have died in siege of Leningrad, allegation not supported by cited sources Olympedia and Russian language Profile, the latter of which states his fate after 1914 "is unknown".
• Holger Salin (Finland) - No decisive death date in most wikipedias. Although Finnuser reported a newspaper report states only he was killed in an accident, his German wikipedia article states that after his last international match (1943) he "fell..in the Continuation War" [term given to Finland's hostilities with the Soviet Union over 1941-45 in concert with Germany] in '1943 or 1944'. I do wonder if he was serving in the Finnish Armed Forces though. (Accidents as well as combat killed a number of players on the list.)
• 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.
• 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?
• 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
• Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
• 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 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) 07:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Cloptonson I'm having a look at Harry Spencer since he is a New Zealander. Did find he played in one/two teams that won the NZ Knockout cup competition Chatham Cup so far, will look more if can match it up with the NZ soldier or not.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Booklist

I just happened to stumble across the WikiProject Football Booklist, which I hadn't known existed before. Seems to be useful. If someone has other football-related books to add to the list it would be nice :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Winchmore Hill F.C.

Last time at AfD it was kept under technicality, should it be deleted now? Doesn't really pass GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the sections of a stadium called?

In a football stadium, what are the four sides called? The two "short" seating spaces are called "curva" in Italian, while the two "long" sides "tribuna". Is there a distinction between the stands for the press and the one on the opposite side? Image for reference. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There aren't distinct words in English for the facilities on any particular side of the pitch, they are all just called stands. Going back to when grounds tended to only have seats on one or at most two sides and then terracing (often without even a roof) on the others, the side(s) with seats were the grandstands, gradually abbreviated over time to stands, and the others were just "the terraces". Nowadays, with terracing gone, all sides are just "stands" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few Ends left too, and these will be behind one of the goals! Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As Spike 'em says, there are several English grounds with Ends - though sponsorship of stands may mean they are known by other names (the Gresty Road End at Crewe, for example, is the Rhino Safety Stand, but most fans still refer to it by its old name, or as the GRE) - also Sides (I stood on the Pop Side at Crewe before it became all-seater) and some grounds also have Banks (Swindon's County Ground has the Stratton Bank, for example). I guess this harks back to people standing on embankments (as a kid I sometimes stood on what was locally known as the "Ash Bank" at the Railway End of Gresty Road - now the 'Family Stand' - back in the days when fans could move between standing areas of the ground). Oh, and the old Gresty Road Main Stand used to have a standing area (in front of the raised seating) which was known as "The Paddock". Paul W (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess that would be the home side's "curva", right? I'm surprised there aren't specific terms in English, other than all four sides being referred to as "stands". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What would happen if you used the Italian names with Template:Lang-ita? And then you explain what a curva and a tribuna are? Dr Salvus 11:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Having to explain what curva and tribuna (and sometimes gradinata/distinti) mean in the body of the article seems a bit pedantic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The term stand is used where (tiered) seating is provided for the spectators; the areas where spectators are expected to stand up are known as terraces if they are tiered (in the form of broad shallow steps), paddocks if flat. Stands are usually covered, terraces might be covered but need not be, paddocks are always open. Where a ground has two or more stands, the term grandstand is used for one with the most expensive prices - usually centred on one side of the pitch and having the best view. A ground with only one stand may still call it the grandstand though. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

See also Kop. GiantSnowman 08:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been to quite a few stadiums which have North, East, South, West stands probably due to stadium alignment and how it was built! Govvy (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, but I think the original question related to what the generic terms were in English for "a stand along the long side" and "a stand along the short side" and I just don't think we have them. While many stadia have a stand behind a goal called "the [something] End", I don't think anyone would say that the generic term in English for any stand behind a goal is "an end". But maybe I am wrong...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their answers. I asked this query in order to better describe the stadium section at A.C. Monza. I just opted to call them "stand" (lowercase s) when talking generically, and "West (or whatever) Stand" (capital S) when talking about a specific stand. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If they're not proper names, you shouldn't capitalise "west stand" etc. – Elisson • T • C • 16:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is, see this for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Though it does seem to be inconsistent. Here they use lowercase, while here they use uppercase. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

But "west stand" or "east stand" is just our descriptive translation rather than a proper name as such? I would prefer Monza re-opened the east stand (Tribuna Est) [...] over translating the stands and artificially treating the translations as proper names when they (very likely) aren't. – Elisson • T • C • 17:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If "east stand" is lowercase, so should "Tribuna Est". I've removed all instances of uppercase. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Defunct competitions

93.34.89.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding a "Defunct competitions" header to the Italy national football team article (dif), referring to a "standard". AFAIK, it is not standard to have this header. Am I mistaken? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP is most likely Oluclen; see this section. They already have a history of engaging in edit warring. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging involved editor Vesuvio14. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Defunct competitions is not standard, looking at Indonesia and Egypt. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FA's such as Belgium and Scotland also don't have it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve checked numerous articles and can’t find examples of this anywhere. I definitely don’t think there should be such a section. Vesuvio14 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

New article Late blooming in association football or List of association football players considered as a late bloomer

I was wondering about creating article in terms of late bloomering in football. We would describe there football players who started proffesional career lately like Enric Gallego, Junior Messias, Elmo Kambindu or world class players who made explosion after 30 like Roger Milla and Luca Toni, and other interesing cases like of course Jamie Vardy? What do you think? There is an article but not speciffially focussed on football: Late bloomer. 17:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My opinion doesn’t hold much weight, but it just sounds like an indiscriminate collection of information to me. See what other people think.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We could expand the “football” section of the article or do it more factually, like “list of footballers who signed a professional contract after 25 and still won a trophy”. It’s just that “late bloomer” is very subjective. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

All opinions are of equal merit - and I agree, this sounds non-notable. GiantSnowman 19:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see the notability in this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that we don't need a separate article on this unless there is evidence that late blooming is more notable in football than in other fields. Otherwise it could be covered by an expanded (and hopefully better-written) section in the existing article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the former of the two suggested titles is not grammatically correct English. It would be "Late blooming in association football" not "Late bloomering in association football". "Bloomering" isn't a word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The second one isn't grammatically correct either. It should be "considered as late bloomers" or "considered as a late bloomer". Either way, don't see evidence we need a stand-alone list for this, not least because it wouldn't have a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria (as "late bloomer" is subjective). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes, I corrcted the grammar issues. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

China

See this (and pinging S.A. Julio). Since {{fb|IRN}} and {{fb|KOR}} respectively display Iran (not IR Iran) and South Korea (not Korea Republic), I don't see why China is the only nation to display its FIFA name (China) rather than the common name (China). The article is also located at China national football team, rather than at China PR national football team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - but it might be political due to the Republic of China? Fifa used China PR. GiantSnowman 20:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifa also uses "Korea Republic", but we use "South Korea" despite the existence of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Anyway, I think the name generated by the {{fb}} template should match the country name (and as a consequence the national team's name) used on Wikipedia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Korean and Iranian examples are quite different. Iran doesn't have another country with the same name so it really doesn't matter if you've got IR in there or not. Both Korea Republic and DPR Korea call themselves Korea but the most commonly used way of telling them apart is the South/North way, not the way FIFA does it. There is more than one China so it makes sense to have a way of telling them apart in the name (although China PR is definitely the primary topic). The fact that the Republic of China has already been forced to comprise and compete for most sports as Chinese Taipei might negate that but I feel having the PR in there makes it doubly certain for the average user. I agree however that the article name and link text should be consistent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the reasoning behind using "China PR" over "China", but it should be consistent throughout. Either we move China and China national football team to China PR and China PR national football team, or we change {{fb}} to display "China". I would much prefer the latter, given that "China" is by far the primary topic, and the island is referred to as "Taiwan" (or Chinese Taipei sports-wise). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should display "China". It is by far the common name (with Republic of China being known as Taiwan or Chinese Taipei). --SuperJew (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging Pppery, who had initially removed "China PR" as an alias. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

My initial edit was per an edit request at Template talk:Country data China#Edit request (made by you). I have no position in this content dispute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not strongly invested in this, though I agree with Stevie fae Scotland's comment. As a note, "China PR" has been used on Wikipedia for the football flag template since 2005, so I wanted to be sure there is consensus to change it. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Stevie fae Scotland: do you agree in changing {{fb}} to display "China", for consistency with China national football team, for the time being? Also, this change would be in line with this page move in 2013. If you believe that the NT article should be moved back to China PR national football team you can open a RM and, if the consensus is to move it, we can revert the changes to {{fb}} to display "China PR" again. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just China would be enough, imo. Matches the article name. Kante4 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as we're consistent, I'm not really too fussed which way round we do it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Keepmoat Stadium

Apologies if this is not the correct place to discuss this, but surely the article for Doncaster Rovers home ground needs renaming as the sponsorship naming with Keepmoat has expired and the ground now has a new sponsor name. RM-Taylor (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@RM-Taylor: Feel free to open a WP:RM. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion started: Talk:Keepmoat Stadium#Requested move 22 August 2022. Feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Pre-season stats included in club season articles

Hello - I believe that pre-season stats should be reported in club season articles. I don't mean in the info box but just in a table under 'Statistics' under 'Goalscorers', 'Friendlies'. In my opinion these statistics belong to a club season and this can be stated very well. On this way it is not specifically included in player stats, but only in club seasons. - I'd love to hear what you guys think about this. Thanks in advance. SapCal9719 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree - they are friendlies, not official games. The games themselves can be listed, but not the stats. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree aswell. Seems overkill to me. Kante4 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that many pre-season friendlies aren't fully reported and not all the information is available. --SuperJew (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Plus many times trialists and such will play in pre-season friendlies. --SuperJew (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll also jump on the disagree pile. Sounds like another case of including stats for the sake of it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Don’t see how pre-season matches hold much weight, considering Man United beat Liverpool 4-0 in one of them recently. It’s a disagree for me.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering many of the big clubs basically play their U-23 squads and rotate up to 3 times during matches I don't think there is any reason to include pre-season stats in club season articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Pre-season friendlies are usually little more than an exercise in getting players fit. Little intensity, many substitutes and as far as the season goes, of little consequence.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree too - previous contributions sum up numerous reasons not to. Paul W (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all reasons above- no pre-season friendly stats, only competitive matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that we should not be including friendly stats, but for the reason that reliable sources do not do this. For us to do so would effectively be original research, in that we would be presenting information in such a way that is not reflected in reliable sources. – PeeJay 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

How do we talk about Tobin Heath and Christen Press's relationship status?

So one of the worst-kept secrets in the women's game over the last few years has been the romantic relationship between Tobin Heath and Christen Press. They never confirmed the relationship, though they'd occasionally drop social media posts that hint at a romantic relationship, and neither has publicly come out. This summer, they appeared as a couple publicly for the first time, holding hands at the ESPY Awards. At that event, Press answered questions from ET Online, where she was asked about her relationship with Heath and mostly tried to dodge the interviewer's attempts to get her to confirm their relationship status, but she does concede at one point that the two are a "power couple" like Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe.

Some editors see that as a confirmation of their relationship (see [18] and [19]). I watched the same interview and thought Press was trying to avoid declaring themselves a romantic pair. In any case, I think we need a source other than etonline to verify, but as far as I can tell, no WP:RS has reported the "power couple" statement.

What's the correct approach here? I know this is a gossip column, but it sticks mostly to reported facts and the conclusion is that they're not "officially" a couple, even though they obviously are. Or is the "power couple" statement enough to be a "confirmation" (without any other source, I think it runs afoul of WP:SYNTH). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds more like a BLP issue than a FOOTY one. Spike 'em (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This guideline seems to suggest that we should not "out" the subject, unless they themselves openly come out. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em You're right - I've started a thread on the BLP board and consider this discussion closed. Thanks. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

World Cup Team of the Tournament templates

Lnhbm has been changing some FIFA World Cup Team of the Tournament navigational boxes to include newspaper team of the seasons, in addition to FIFA's official team (see dif at Template:1990 FIFA World Cup Team of the Tournament for example). Is this necessary? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely no. FIFA team of the tournament is an actual thing covered in proper sources. Newspapers' opinions of best players are subjective and not covered in detail. Also, it makes the templates way too long, which violates loads of template-related guidelines. Also, that user's talk page is full of notifications about templates, so it seems this isn't the only time they've been disruptive on templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Have reverted them, as blatant misuses of template policy. Hopefully the user discusses here before mass changing them again.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

They've also added the navbox to a bunch of the players in the newspaper teams, so those edits will need to be reverted too... Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

and it turns out they have done so on previous dates in the past, so a whole bunch of other sets of edits will have to be undone. Probably best to use a transclusion tool to find errant articles for each template, such as 1982 one Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Categorisation of clubs

I realise this doesn't matter to many people (particularly on a Saturday evening) but anyway. My understanding was that football clubs should have a non-diffusing 'headline category' basically matching their short description, i.e Football clubs in Xland [their football nation] unaffected by all others, in the same way a player will be, for instance, a generic French footballer over and above being a France international footballer, a Ligue 1 player, a Footballer from Paris, a French expatriate footballer and/or a PSG player as applicable. The lists of most nations (here) do follow this pattern but there are several which don't; significantly Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Mexico, Rep of Ireland, Romania, Spain (which I was starting to 'fix' when I thought it was a one-off, then doubted myself and came here), South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine and USA. Not sure if there is a firm guideline at a football club template or just a site-wide convention that has been interpreted in different ways, but either way there really should be consistency across the sport. If it doesn't need to be used, there is really no need for there to be 974 articles in Football clubs in Germany when there is also a complete set of Football clubs in Germany by state where they are already also listed. Or if the rule does need to be used, might be good to have someone who knows how to create bots to do one to add the category for the exceptional countries above, as the total for a few of these will run well into the hundreds. Crowsus (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Football clubs in COUNTRY should be non-diffusing. GiantSnowman 17:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Irish one is especially confusing. Category:Association_football_clubs_in_South_Dublin_(county) is a sub-cat of Category:Association football clubs in County Dublin but then both are direct sub-cats of Category:Association football clubs in the Republic of Ireland by county.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I had to look it up, but that stems from the fact that the current four counties within County Dublin only came into effect comparatively recently (in 1994) so there appears to be a desire to cling to the old name to cover all of them. The article still uses "is" to describe County Dublin and of course it is one of the traditional '26 counties' but the lead of that article suggests it is no longer an official county. So my first instinct would be to delete the County Dublin 'layer' although I am wary of ruffling feathers. But if that is to stay, then there's no need to have Leinster, and no need to have the newer divisions at the County level if they are in County Dublin. But then, articles on them specifically states they are counties so should be listed at the same level as Meath, Kildare etc. And they have been there for nearly 25 years so maybe time for County Dublin to go? Crowsus (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Opted for removing Leinster as superfluous, as there seems to be a lot of different categories using County Dublin (including many, many football players who are clearly from the city itself) so hopefully nobody from Dún Laoghaire etc will be too annoyed that their entry is somewhat hidden inside Dublin. Crowsus (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that the "Football clubs in COUNTRY" category should be non-diffusing (although only for extant clubs; defunct ones should be in the defunct sub-category). Number 57 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes sorry you're quite right, that is the main exception, one primary category for 'living' clubs and another for 'dead'. Germany seems to have a set of defunct by state (and listed all together there too) which is pretty unusual but matches what we were saying about the non diffusing for 'living' so I reckon it's OK. But Spain and Mexico only have them within the regional subcats so again that should probably be amended. Think I'll have a look at AWB (which I have been a bit fearful of) for this and other lame undertakings I seem to draw myself into, then I won't be bothering anyone else but hopefully won't take as long as doing it manually. Crowsus (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)