Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Soccerbase link

At the moment the template contains a link to Soccerbase. This is inappropriate because the website is a betting agency and the link amounts to free advertising. It would be better to replace this with a link to Premier League, which is the official body. Michael Glass (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No - Soccerbase is considered a reliable source, and the Premier League website only covers Premier League games (unsurprisingly...). A better site would be Soccerway. GiantSnowman 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that Soccerway would be better than Soccerbase . I make no comment on the reliability of Scccerbase except to state that it is a betting site, and that is why it is questionable. I do not believe that it is proper to put such a link in the template, especially when there are other organisations that could be used in its place, including BBC Sport, Premier League and perhaps Soccerway. (Soccerway does carry betting advertisements, but it is not a betting site as Soccerbase appears to be Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We won't fall for that one Michael. We know the reason you hate Soccerbase is that it sticks to the British practice of using feet & inches and stones & pounds, as well as metric conversions, for player statistics; whilst your favoured premier league site atypically uses metric units only. Wikipedia should not be used for pushing your views on how the UK should be forced into using the metric system alone. Baaarny (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of Baaarny. This is the first of three edits made under that name as I write. The other two were to create a user page and user talk. I think that this is a sockpuppet account. Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't think the template should include a link to any particular stats site at all. It's a leftover from the time when an external link to an appropriate stats site was considered sufficient for sourcing the player's infobox stats. Although many editors still think it's OK to do it that way, rather than either having a row-by-row-sourced career stats table or having one or more general references, in the References section, explicitly noted as source(s) for infobox statistics, it's not something we should be encouraging. Better to include generic ideas of what might be relevant: "link to player's personal website", "link to profile on current club's website", "link to full details of international career", whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Struway2's proposal. We don't need a link to Soccerbase or any of the other possible links embedded in the template as if it's the prime source of all wisdom. We have Premier League, BBC Sports, Transfermarkt, Soccerway, Soccerbase and no doubt others that I am not aware of. All of them have their strengths and their weaknesses and arbitrarily singling out just one of them to put in the template doesn't seem to me to be warranted. Michael Glass (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing one specific link. As a side note Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed that link. Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Re your edit summary: Just to clarify that although the passing observer might infer a causal relationship from the wording "Removed the link to the betting site following Struway2's suggestion", I'm sure you didn't mean to imply one. Struway2 never suggested removing a link to a betting site: you did. I suggested replacing all specific links with suggestions as to what sort of link might be appropriate, and will now proceed to do so. Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if my edit summary was misleading. I am glad that you have made your changes so promptly. Michael Glass (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating international events statistic section

While in most of articles about football players performing at international level, we can find "international statistics" section with apps and goals scored in particular years, I've been always missing a section where I could read how a player performed during international events. For that purpose I put some work to edit some articles I follow and created extra sections called "international events". It's based on a template used by NHL ice hockey players. I made that edit for 6 articles, here is the example of such a list for created for Neymar:

International events

Only major international events including the Olympic Games with U23 team

Year	Event	Place	Apps	Goals	Result	Individual
2011	Copa América	Argentina	4	2	QF
2012	Summer Olympics	London, England	6	3
2013	Confederations Cup	Brazil	5	4		Golden Ball, Dream Team, Bronze Shoe
2014	World Cup	Brazil	5	4	4th	Bronze Boot, Dream Team
2015	Copa América	Chile	2	1	QF

All the edits has been however reverted by Qed237 who believes that there is no need for such lists and that it's a POV in a way of describing "major" competitions. My idea is that the list gives a reader nice overview of how a player performed at international events, and that describing "major" events is quite easy in football. At international level we have youth, friendly, qualifying and "major" competitions where we have got FIFA World Cup, continental championships, FIFA Confederations Cup plus the Summer Olympic Games tournament being all official events under FIFA or respective confederations.

Please give me idea if a layout of such lists could exist for football players. Ksihoo 21:54 (CET), 14 October 2015

@Ksihoo: not many editors follow this subsection, I would recommend WT:FOOTY. Qed237 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think these kind of stats tables should be added, per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Creating international events statistic section. Please comment there. Qed237 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cup win links

In a players' club honours section their are often links to domestic and international cup wins. Should the year given link to the article for the cup competition or the article for the final? After looking through the articles for the players on Arsenal and Man U I can't see a clear consensus. However most appear to link to the article for the entire competition, rather than the final, which makes more sense to me. Thoughts? Is there a discussion on this point somewhere I have missed? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My reason for asking is I recently modified Wayne Rooney's article to link to competitions rather than the final, and the change was undone with the comment "@PeeJay2K3: in English football, a player is not typically considered to have won a competition if he doesn't participate in the final (since the players in the final would usually have been the only ones to get medals" GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal life and style of play

There are currently no "personal life" or "style of play" sections in the template, whereas most footballer articles have such a section; should we add one to the template? If so, where would the appropriate location be, above the "statistics" section? Thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The sections should probably go 'Early and personal life' > 'Club career' > 'International career' > 'Style of play' > 'Career statistics' > 'Honours'. GiantSnowman 17:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think early and personal life should go together since events in personal life generally occur much later in their life. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

But in a basic article nothing is really chronological. Club career events will extend beyond international ones, but will be above it in the article... GiantSnowman 18:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but this is slightly different since having something occur so late in an "early life" section will be contracting its title, unlike the club career/international example. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

second subtotal row (goals)

Why are you not displaying the goals on the subtotal row before the grand total row? Govvy (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Honours Section Clarity

Could someone please explain to me the basis for populating the honours section for a player? In particular, one-match tournaments like the UEFA Super Cup. For instance, Gareth Bale was present on the 25-man squad list submitted for this game (Cristiano Ronaldo was not on this list), he received the winners' medal, so how is it justified that he does not receive the credit in the honours section? He was not on the match-day squad, but he did no more/less than someone who was, but didn't play, like say Danilo or Rubén Yañez. The official Real Madrid page credits both CR and Bale with the trophy, which would make sense if you see it as "honours won while playing for X club". But upholding the match-day squad over all else seems a bit thin, after all, the guy literally has the winners' medal. That's proper evidence of the honour.

Apologies if this is the inappropriate place to seek this clarification. Archives are vast. —Tombstone5650 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

We reply on reliable sources to verify information. We need sources which explicitly state that a player has an honour, as simple as that. Being a squad member and making the assumption somebody has a medal is not enough. 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nationality question

There is a recurring edit debate, peaceful so far, over the article Dom Dwyer regarding his nationality. Dwyer is notable only as US soccer player, although he was born in England and played for English youth clubs before moving to the US and becoming a US resident, citizen, and (notable) professional soccer player. Like the vast majority of notable footballers, he has never played for any adult national team in a FIFA-recognized official match, which is the (claimed) standard. One editor claims that this page therefore implies that he should be listed as English, and not as US or English-American, and that this guideline prohibits hyphenated nationalities in opening paragraphs. First, is that the consensus on the Wikipedia guideline? If so, why? As I read them, the general guidelines for biographies permit compound nationality descriptions in the opening. Why have a different set of rules for footballers? Also, adult national team participation provides no guidance for the vast majority of individuals who will never participate at that level. Can't we come up with a different standard for determining nationality? Rks13 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

He should be listed as English. GiantSnowman 17:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the maximally unhelpful answer. So, to continue in that style, I'll ask a maximally unhelpful question: Why? Rks13 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO #context states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

The article clearly shows with references that he has aquired American citizenship, and he is fulfilling notability criteria as American, he should be listed as American.

The MOS also goes on to state "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability"

As he was notable before he became American, it is correct to mention his English nationality, so English-American; unless there is reliable source showing he has renounced or otherwise surrended his English citizenship, in which case he should be listed just as American, or as English born American. ClubOranje^T 22:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Goals for Goalkeepers

Is it appropriate to ommit the goals columns for goalkeepers?

In leaving in the goals columns for goalkeepers you end up with a table that can be very unreadable.

Yes there are occasions when goalkeepers have scored goals and when this occurs they should definitely be included.

Thoughts?

Graemec2 (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Honours bit

I was wondering on the template here if the club names should be unlinked, maybe added a second section, Clubname2 with a temp trophy to show people how it should be listed. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that club names should be unlinked. Also, the page should be updated to reflect what was discussed at this recent thread at WT:FOOTY. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree to what has been put forward by both of you. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw that a while back, yep, I would like to have the page updated to reflect these, I am not sure if I have a right to edit it know. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite:, hows that, I changed it to suit what was discussed. Govvy (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

My thinking was for level three headings to be used to distinguish between playing and managerial honours (if needed), and bold text headings for club, international and individual honours, like here. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Stats table Division

I like the way you just you combine the multiple cells all saying the same league into one cell. Can we change it to that? Govvy (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

See this post from December 2013. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

FA Cup qualifying rounds in player stats

I've just created an article for Malachi Napa of Oxford United, since he's made quite a few substitute appearances and had his first league start at the weekend, so appears to qualify as notable now. No problem with his Oxford appearances, but he was on loan at Hampton & Richmond Borough F.C. earlier this season and played a few games in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup. Do these count as appearances in the "National Cup" when it comes to "Career statistics"? I'm also not sure about the status of the "Middlesex Senior Cup" (I wouldn't normally include Oxfordshire Senior Cup appearances in an Oxford player's career stats, but they're perhaps more significant during a non-league phase in a player's career). For now I've included both, but would be interested in consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dave - FA Cup qualifying counts as 'National Cup', Middlesex Senior Cup counts as 'Other'. Both can be included as long as they are reliably sourced.GiantSnowman 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Correcting use of updated template

We should make it clear that the updated template requires a reference. I would like to see that the "matches played" is removed. It was added without discussion and is unnecessary. I had an editor revert the removal of the term saying that it was "suggested" at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll advertise this on WT:FOOTY, not sure how much this page is watchlisted.

I'm assuming you mean the {{updated}} template that some editors use to generate the correct-as-of date at the top? But I still don't understand why that template needs a reference, if the rows of the table are individually sourced, as is recommended. What would it be referencing? (If the table rows aren't individually sourced, then attaching the reference(s) to that template seems sensible.)

The "match played" wording is there to eliminate ambiguity for the reader. With it, they can see that the table is supposed to be correct as of and including the match played on <date>. Without it, ambiguity exists if the table was updated on a matchday: when the reader sees "as of <date>", they can't tell whether the table includes that day's match or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for clarifying. The template itself doesn't need a reference. It's the best place for the reference and it accommodates it (poorly as it includes a space). Some statistics tables have row-by-row references, and so it's not needed there, but many have no references at all. There have been cases where the table is updated weekly and done without a reference. This is both for players and teams. No reference on the page for the statistics anywhere. Reminding editors that a reference is required, even for statistics is important, especially in cases where they are debated, and edit wars start over them.

The "matches played" copy is great for the 1% of high-traffic articles that are updated after (or sometimes as) matches are played. What about the cases where those valiant soles update them on the Tuesday after match day or the followers of the small leagues who update them after a months worth of matches or even at the end of a season? The copy is entirely superfluous then. Ideally, we should move all the statistics to Wikidata and reference that instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Referencing: so how about moving bullet point 3, the one that says "ideally, each row should be individually sourced. If this is not done, reference(s) for the entire table should appear within this section", up to bullet point 1, bolding relevant bits so people might spot it, and adding words to suggest after the as-of date as a good place for them to appear? Not that people who create unsourced content take a blind bit of notice of the wording on suggested layouts...

Match played: it's recommended because it benefits the reader. An editor should be checking the source(s) anyway, whenever and however often they update, and if the source shows when the player's or their team's last match was, it's just as easy to write that date as the current one. And at the end of the season you can put {{updated|end of 2017–18 season}}. But it's recommended, not compulsory. There was at least one "discussion" about that wording, not a very edifying one, and rather dominated by an obsessive anon who didn't seem to like me very much :-) which came to no conclusion other than some people didn't see the point, some people did, and trying to impose one's personal preference wasn't a good idea. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How in the world can you be unliked? Your suggestion addresses my two main concerns. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My TIOLI opinion is: this is just a template, so in some circumstances it may be done different in the article. As of match played I see as a good thing as it makes it clear it what it includes up to. If you just have updated (date) and (date) happens to be a match day, does it include that match or not? Bearing in mind I am way ahead of most people on the planet, my 20 Oct 2017 is finished before Brazilian 20 Oct 2017 sunrise, so unless an editor uses the "five-tilde" 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) format it is quite unclear whether today's match is included. On the reference thing, having it there in the template is a good reminder; it can always be omitted if you reference each line, but if you are using the same ref for each line it is well to just put in a single ref for the table. Having a reminder in the template is never a bad thing. ClubOranje^T 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What does it matter if it was updated to include today's match or not if we're using reliable sources rather than personal opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've not a lot to add other than endorsing Struway2's comments above, that including "match played" eliminates ambiguity for our readers. It seems to me there is only one editor actually opposed to its inclusion, based on this discussion at least. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox code

Hey. Currently, player's stints are written in the infobox like this

| years1 = 2002–2008
| years2 = 2009–2010
| clubs1 = Template United
| clubs2 = Template Rangers
| caps1 = 12
| caps2 = 32
| goals1 = 2
| goals2 = 11


while this seems much better to read:

| years1 = 2002–2008
| clubs1 = Template United
| caps1 = 12
| goals1 = 2
| years2 = 2009–2010
| clubs2 = Template Rangers
| caps2 = 32
| goals2 = 11


Is anybody opposed to changing the order? Robby.is.on (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the order should be:

|years1 = 2002–2008
|clubs1 = Template United
|caps1 = 12
|goals1 = 2
|years2 = 2009–2010
|clubs2 = Template Rangers
|caps2 = 32
|goals2 = 11


That's what is used in {{Infobox football biography}}... GiantSnowman 14:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, yes, that's what mean to suggest. Okay, I'll correct the infobox here, then. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

International Goals Table

I've noticed that for various players there is an International goals table, but the format of those tables is inconsistent (see here and here). Sometimes there's a note on who is credited with the assist, whether they started the match, and also shading for the type of match the goal was scored in (ex. World Cup vs Friendly). I'd like to make those consistent, but I couldn't find anything in the template to address this. Do we have a template for how the International goals table should be set up? I, personally, like including those extra details since everything is available in the match reports, but if there are reasons not to, we should discuss that. WoSoFan (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There was talk about this on the main Talk page a while back - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95#International goals - and used Anthony Laffor#International goals as an example of a good table layout. If I had some time to dedicate to making a template version of this table, I'll look into it, but that won't be for a while I'm afraid. --Philk84 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Repetition of league names in career statistics

Why not avoid the repetition of league names like this? SLBedit (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

See #Stats table Division above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Or, as mentioned in the notes in the documentation, there was a thread here where an editor with some expertise in accessibility issues said that screen reader users wouldn't be "disadvantaged noticeably" if the cells were rowspanned rather than the content repeated. So the long answer is, we recommend the best practice for accessibility, and changing an existing format away from that best practice isn't a good idea, but it does no real harm if a new article is created with rowspanned cells (within each club section, anyway). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellow cards/Red cards

Are we going to make the disciplinary record of players part of their career box stats? This practice is sporadic but is available on Soccerbase, Soccerway, and is visible on match reports from the BBC, The Guardian, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franburke2 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Franburke2 (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Franburke2

Nope; non-notable and stats are only available for modern players (same reason we don't/won't include assists). GiantSnowman 07:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cup appearances

Why do only league appearances count for the info box?Muur (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Because cup games for many older players are unknown, so the stats would not be reflective/accurate. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As this policy currently stands, goal and appearance statistics for many other aspects of players' careers are being omitted: domestics cups, continental league, continental cups, etc. If we lack these related statistics for older players, might I suggest that we create a template that indicates this for those specific players? Eventually, we will face a situation where the players for whom we have complete statistical information will outnumber the players for whom we do not (if this hasn't happened already). This seems like a policy that will not age well, and does not accurately reflect the statistical totality of modern players' careers. I'd be happy to help with this endeavour! Tjbakerscala 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's a style guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd defend the current policy, for three reasons (in a UK context, at least). Firstly, there are competitions such as the EFL Trophy that are technically first-team fixtures but often involve teams full of fringe players. Secondly, even the major cup competitions (FA Cup and League Cup) are now treated as of secondary importance by many of the bigger teams. Thirdly, appearances give an idea of whether the player made regular appearances in the first team over their time at the club, and cup appearances cloud that picture. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox team years

I would like to question what value should be put under "years" next to a club when a player leaves in the winter transfer window in the first days of January. Imho it makes sense to consider this window as lying really in between both years with the player playing for one club before the new year and the other club after.

Let me explain through the example of Sébastien Pocognoli. Standard Liège announced on January 2nd that his contract had been terminated by mutual consent and a few days later he signed for Union SG. In my view, he has thus played for Standard Liège from 2017 to 2019 and for Union SG from 2020 onwards as he has not appeared for the former club in 2020, despite his contract only being terminated on January 2nd (could even have been in December, the source does not specify!). Putting 2017–2020 as his years at Standard Liège is, in my opinion, misleading as an unfamiliar reader might expect this player to have finished the full 2019–2020 season at Standard Liège. I would like to propose that if a player leaves in the January window without appearing for a team in January itself, the period is set to the end of the prior year. Note that this January transfer window is an exception in that sense that I'm not proposing to only put the period in which a player appeared. Suppose Pocognoli's last match for Standard Liège had been in 2018, still I believe we should put 2017-19. Any thoughts? Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue at WT:FOOTBALL - the most recent discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 128#Start and end dates of spells in the infobox. GiantSnowman 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Loan spells

After a few tries at editing the John Terry and seeing it reversed [1]. Should not a player's break to join a club on loan be indicated in chronological order? My preferred style is followed in two of Terry's notable peers - David Beckham#Club and Ashley Cole#Club. The current John Terry#Career_statistics format of putting his loan spell out of order at the bottom, rather than neatly tucked in between his Chelsea seasons seems jarring to the reader, whose eye would naturally follow the 'season' column first, rather than 'club'? Queeninbriefs (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The career statistics here shows a mid-season loan and yet the statistics at the first club are kept together and the loan follows. It makes the team totals easier to calculate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's standard to do it the John Terry way - chronological but permanent spells not interrupted by loan spells. GiantSnowman 17:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz This may make it easier for the editor, but definitely not the reader. The reader will want to follow the career, year by year? The reason I changed the John Terry one to begin with was because I thought it looked like someone had been lazy and just tacked his Forest spell on, out of order. It looks sloppy. Queeninbriefs (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the reader will get confused by loan clubs appearing in the middle of a parent club block, and wondering why the 'total' does not add up. GiantSnowman 10:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

At least one reader might become confused, but I suppose other readers would confused to see another team's data listed in the middle of a long stay. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As per David Beckham#Club and Ashley Cole#Club the totals situation is solved by putting 'CLUB total'. Also, this policy seems to be in place to benefit the editor. I doubt the reader would get confused by loan clubs appearing in the middle of a parent club block. I have confidence in their awareness of the football loan system. The Premier League website lists loan spells in the middle of parent club blocks. See here Queeninbriefs (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This approach has been agreed-upon by the project. If you want to re-open it, you'll have to do so formally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Queeninbriefs: - saying 'club' total doesn't work for players who have had 2 or more separate spells at the club. Drop the stick. GiantSnowman 19:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, GiantSnowman and that is something that can be sorted out although not as a priority because it's not a very common occurence. Here are some more examples of leading football statistics websites who list season by season. Soccerbase, Who Score, FB Ref, TransferMarkt. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

None of those other than Soccerbase are deemed reliable (Transfermarkt especially), and Soccerbase actually supports our position, not yours, as in the career summary bit at the top it groups the club together with loan spells after. GiantSnowman 13:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Still, the Premier League supports my position. As does Fox Sports and NBC. I would not say it was a 'position' that time is linear. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this debate concluded, or is there still a case to be made for mirroring the Premier League's own style of listing loan spells in the middle of parent club blocks? Queeninbriefs (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it has concluded with only one editor requesting a change to the current process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Locked?

I was wondering if this template article should be either locked to admins or extended users only. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not much in the way of unconstructive edits, but it wouldn't hurt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging GiantSnowman, Govvy (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure it needs locking just because one persistent disruptive editor is targeting it: better to target the disrupter. In general, most people who edit here are doing so in good faith because they think it's the right place to start a new article, and if they're directed to somewhere to get help with that, at Help:Your first article or WP:Articles for creation or the WP:Teahouse, they move on. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a template article to show how an article is suppose to be, setting it to extended users access will still allow others to see the code, but just not mess with it. The whole of 2019 90% of the edits to the article template seem pretty disruptive. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently we have written in the documentation:

This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea. Click on "edit this page" to see the page source, which can be copied and edited for new articles.

We could rewrite to tell people to copy the source to their sandbox instead. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Like Struway2 I don't think there's sufficient disruption to justify protection. GiantSnowman 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)