Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Women's World Cup

With the Women's World Cup starting in a month, I think we should have a small push to improve the visibility of women's football content in various areas, e.g. DYK and GAN. I have already taken 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup to GA/DYK and plan on nominating for FAC with hopes of it running on the Main Page in time for the 2019 final or the 20th anniversary of its final, both of which are in mid-July. It would be amazing to have a full set of women's football hooks for DYK for the opening match and final, like we did with last year's World Cup. SounderBruce 06:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. For those going, are there many people or places that need photos? Hack (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For those interested, there is a dynamic list of women footballers who are notable for an article but don't have one yet (or it is very minimal) here. I added redlinked WWC players too while working on the squads page. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup squads is also good for the current players with no articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

International career dates

I know this has been discussed a number of times before, but I was wondering what the current consensus is about closing off a player's international career dates if he/she is still active, hasn't explicitly retired from international football, but realistically looks exceptionally unlikely to ever get called up again? The example I am particularly looking at is Matt Jarvis. He played once for England more than eight years ago, and although he has never explicitly announced his international retirement (why would he?) he is now 33 and most recently played in League One. Do we really need to wait until he completely retires from football to close off his England career, even though common sense dictates he'll never get another cap? Will I be reverted if I remove the dash from his infobox.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For me, the dash should be removed after 1 year of inactivity. If he were to be called up again after 1, 2 or 8 years then the dash should be put back. I say 1 year because it's the "limit" for the "recent results and matches", and therefore of the "recent call-ups", section of the national team pages. While this is only my opinion, I think it's the most logical solution to this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd put in the years from first cap to latest cap, and update it if they play again in a subsequent year. That way the dates would always be complete and up to date However, I recognise that I am likely to be within the minority on this, despite how logical I feel this approach is. ClubOranje^T 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's what I do too when a player has retired. The "dash" to indicate a player being active though should be removed after 1 year I think. If a player stops playing in 2017, and after one year he still hasn't been called up, I would put 2008–2017 one year after his last call up and 2008– between 2017 and 2018. I'm not sure if I have made myself clear. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I realized now that you would opt to remove the "year1–" altogether and just stick to a "year1–year2", updating the year2 in case the player is called up in following years. I would be against that since we don't put 2018–2019 to the club years once a player signs for a club in 2018 and plays in 2019. If I were to read 2008–2019 for an international player, I would assume the player played an international match this year and (explicitly) retired internationally the same year. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Club is different, a player has an ongoing contract, so the information is verifiably correct. With International, you never know if a player will ever be called up again. With circa 200 countries, 2/3 of which have women's teams as well, so that's say 350 squads of 20+ players, just taking the last squad call up, so 15000 article potentially. You could almost easily double or triple that with the players that have been called up years ago but not since. That's a lot of articles with potentially wrong or misleading information. You know you have a problem when you find a player who's been dead for some years but their international career still says 2008-. Or a player who is now 42, but hasn't been capped since she was 23, but hasn't announced retirement. How long until you close it off?

With first cap date/last cap date as they happen, the information is always correct and verifiable, which is probably a good thing for an outfit claiming to be an encyclopaedia.

As for what readers might assume, which one should never do, because when you make an assumption you make an ass out of u and umption That is easily fixed by tweaking the note at the bottom of the infobox. ClubOranje^T 07:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say one year without a call-up is a decent cut off point, based on the logic that that is where the national team pages recent results end. Otherwise I'd say maybe 3 years, but that would be a arbitrary figure.--EchetusXe 06:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think 3 years is acceptable, arbitrary though it may be. GiantSnowman 08:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say both of those arbitrary cut off points are original research without either an announcement of retirement or bereavement, and therefore neither are acceptable. I think the only acceptable thing is to have first cap date, last cap date. Verifiable. ClubOranje^T 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags - again

‎Mattythewhite has gone through all of the Premier League seasons and removed flags, sometimes getting into edit wars to do so. Even if he is right in his reasoning, which I do not think he is, you'd think he'd ping the talk page here first before making such major changes on multiple articles that then makes them inconsistent with the articles of all other countries/leagues. I know we've had this discussion before but I can't find it, and I think there was agreement to keep the flags. Thoughts? Jopal22 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus formed by a WikiProject's members, if that is indeed correct, doesn't supersede a guideline, in this case WP:MOSFLAG. That's not to mention that the flags are *entirely* unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the discussion we had before said MOS:SPORTFLAGS contradicts that. Whatever you think, you shouldn't have made such a major change on multiple articles unilaterally Jopal22 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They give false prominence to the nationality and I fully support what he is doing. The flag is far more prominent than the club team, which actually is important in these tables. Spike 'em (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG supersedes all indeed. If this makes it not conform to other nationalities, they should then also follow the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this before and it was evident that it was okay to have flag icons next to football players to represent their federation country. I don't know why Mattythewhite is going through removing all the flags, this big issue was discussed before and consensus was to keep for football players so to change without discussion seems very unproductive. I would prefer the flag icons be restore for all the footballers. It was also evident that flag icons shouldn't be used for managers. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We've certainly been through it all before, and some people have certainly felt very strongly that having a flag against a footballer's name regardless of context is more important than following the MoS, but I'm not sure that a small group of editors on an individual project can make such a decision. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There as been a long history of discussion around this, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 13 and various other places. One user shouldn't impose their interpretation ignoring all the discussion that have gone on before Jopal22 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, this again. Recommend these all be reverted per WP:BOLD and then consensus formed before these flags are removed as it's not something I support. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's ridiculous how often we have to keep going through this. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: can you please make sure to check the edit history fully before reverting changes. On one of the Premier League articles you reverted an edit of mine which had nothing to do with flags -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yeah, sorry about that, my bad. There were a couple others with more recent edits that I think I fixed (plus one with two more recent edits, one of which was reverting the other, so I didn't bother with that one and just restored the last good copy.) Smartyllama (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to revert Jopal22 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Smartyllama:. Some editors don't seem to have any regard for the project's MoS or policies. Unfortunately you appear to be one of them. Next time you mass revert my edits, would you mind only reverting the relevant bits, instead of hours worth of other improvements including copy edits and reference formatting? Ta. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have read MOS:SPORTFLAG as recommended in your edit summaries. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing that supports including flags *without* accompanying country names, as laid out by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. I hope I have missed something, as I'd hate to think that you would be disingenuous when citing a MoS in 20+ edit summaries. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smartyllama:, I have just noticed that you accused me of "vandalism" in numerous edit summaries. Could you please substantiate that claim? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Matty, The MoS is out of date, alt-code covers country name which passes WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I find it helpful to have the flags there, especially when you don't know which nation a player represents. It's fine as it is with the flags. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get why a player's nationality is so pertinent to a *club* competition. Even if they were, they should be sourced and presented alongside the names of the countries, in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For example in league competitions where foreign transfer regulations are a factor, I think that knowing weather or not a player is local or not to the league is relevant (such as in the Chinese Super League). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it all getting a bit silly now with the most recent flag additions? Surely we only need to see the flag once against a players name in an article and not every time that player is mentioned? How many French flags does it take to work out Thierry Henry is.......French?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone reads the whole page. It's very likely someone might, for example, be just looking at the top scorers section without having seen a previous section in which the person was already mentioned. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If people really want to know where someone is from, they can make use of the link to the player's article.Spike 'em (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Something being helpful isn't an inclusion criteria. I always think it just is WP:ILIKEIT, rather than what MOS:FLAG states, which is that flags need to display something. International competitions? fine. Player biographies are depreciated. These articles seem to only have flags for managers (which is completely irrelevant), and players nationalities. However, none of this information is ever mentioned in the prose, so flags should have zero baring on the readability of an article. Someone like The Rambling Man is an expert on the whole flag/MOS thing though, so I've pinged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I am the MOSboss. Especially at flags. If people are actively editing against the advice of MOS then they should be advised to desist. I am happy to help in specific instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That part of the MOS has been out of date for a while. You've been told that already. We no longer need to write out country names because the alt-text should take care of that. (On that note, perhaps someone should actually update that part of the MOS.) Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What we can't do is declare a particular bit of MoS out-of-date or otherwise inappropriate just because one random editor says so. If you believe that there's no longer any need to write out country names at first use, please propose that change at the relevant MoS talk page. If you achieve a new consensus for that change, all well and good. But until someone gets that change implemented, we go by the existing site-wide consensus as reflected in the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2:, @Smartyllama: Firstly, we are using flag icons in lists and tables. It clearly says on MoS Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. So because we use flag icons in the tables, we don't need to use the country name. A squad list, doesn't require a country name next to a flag, because it's a list! So we already have a derived MoS on how to use flag icons in a lists and tables. It's the Colour blind access part which is out of date, not the format. There is nothing against using flag icons in the way we are using them in the Football project, just some people have completely miss-read the process of use. Govvy (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ICON actually says: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox. This should only be done if the icon has been used previously with an explanation of its purpose.. so the flag usage DOES need to be explained, and further down :If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. What is this whole argument if not controversial? Spike 'em (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Explanation is to represent a players national affiliation. We have setup a standard practice of doing that. You're trying to read too deep into the MoS and missing the other key points. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You said : So because we use flag icons in the tables, we don't need to use the country name. which is false. MOS:ICON says each flag must be attributed to a country somewhere before it is used without a name anywhere else. Spike 'em (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And it is attributed, by the alt-text. Smartyllama (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Which bit of MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names, the opening sentence, that says The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details, followed by a link to an example that clearly writes the country name out as a visible word, readable without access to any technological assistance, suggests that the existence of alt text is enough? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, was about to quote the same. As mentioned, the example in that section says that {{flag}} should be used in the first instance and that {{flagicon}} will suffice for subsequent uses. (It then uses an out of date example, so I've asked for that to be updated.) Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Top scorer for national team honour?

If a player is the top scorer for a country in a competition, for example the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, or even the competition in general, such as the AFC Asian Cup, would that be considered an honour to be added in his page? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Goalden boot for a competitive sanctioned international tournament is an award. So yes to your first. Top score for your secon...the history of the tournament, is not, and will change over time, but would typically be mentioned in the records and statistics section/article for the competition. ClubOranje^T 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not talking about being the top scorer of a competition, rather of being the player of his country with the most goals in that competition. So if he has 2 goals and no one else in his country has ever scored more than one in that competition, would that be considered an honour/achievement or not? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say definitely not for the "single edition of the tournament" one. "Top scorer for Sweden at the 1978 World Cup" sounds way too trivial to me, especially given that the player in question top scored with one goal! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What about “Top scorer for Lebanon at the AFC Asian Cup: 2 goals”? Or would that also be considered trivial? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not an honour in that section. With a source, it could go in the text as a casual mention. "He was selected for the Lebanon squad at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup and finished as the nation's top scorer with two goals from four matches", etc. Crowsus (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok that's what I imagined, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we usually put it in an "Individual" section under honours. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate under Indidivual --> Performances or under Records --> Lebanon? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nehme1499, Not. ClubOranje^T 13:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Acorona619/Luis López (footballer, born 1999)

Could a fellow editor help Acorona619 understand how this project's football infobox works. They wish to make changes (diff) to the infobox on the Luis López (footballer, born 1999) article.

1. Changing the player's spells with Águilas UAS and Tijuana Premier from senior career to youth career, despite López appearing for both in league competitions that are a part of the Mexican football league system; therefore count as senior spells (here, since been accepted as in any tier).

2. Use of a hyphen over an en dash for infobox years.

3. Other small things, like not capitalising Goalkeeper for position and use of "(loaned)" over "→ Tijuana Premier (loan)".

I certainly assume good faith and have attempted to discuss to help them, but have had no luck other than a series of reverts. If I'm wrong, please correct me. R96Skinner (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Player that signed but did not play any match

I explain you: a player signed (and trained) for a team X, but finally the Federation did not register the player due to some irregularities. Must this player appear in the category of that team X? And must also the team appear in the infobox? Thank you. Asturkian (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes...? Crowsus (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If the player was never registered, then I'd say no. That's what we did with Alex Jones, who "signed" for Wellington Phoenix but the New Zealand Federation messed up the paperwork. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Signings are usually annnounced pending the paperwork. If the paperwork fails then the signing is never complete and the player never formally a part of the club. So I agree that shouldn't be in the infobox.   Jts1882 | talk  10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My case (a basketball player) is exactly like the example of Struway2. So, not in the infobox and no category. Asturkian (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style - Football

Following on from the recurring arguments about flags on football, and other discussions that crop up repeatedly, I noticed that snooker had it's own MOS:SNOOKER. Should Football not have a similar MOS page to outline things like Flags, players records in infobox, what constitutes an "honour" etc. This way we can document the outcome of talk page discussions, and avoid them repeating continuously? Jopal22 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are claimed MOS articles, but they are just outline examples rather than detailing what consensus exist. One point to make is that the Example Season HAS NO FLAGS! Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as fair warning, as someone from the Snooker wikiproject, the issue on flags came up regardless at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1, so having a MOS on flags (and the site wide one) doesn't solve all issues, for whatever reason. The Snooker MOS was also made a long time ago, and does need updating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The most valuable or Xth valuable per Y source

Recently, an editor Retrofan781, keep on adding "most valuable player in the world" statement to Kylian Mbappé by citing International Centre for Sports Studies, which had reverted by me and Mattythewhite. The edit summary of Mattythewhite was "The lead isn't an appropriate place for this content". While for myself, it is not appropriate to insert such content to main body either, as CIES had a questionable notability, as well as WP:UNDUE. Any one want to form a consensus to remove (or form a consensus to add it) such statement in A. Mbappé, B. all article? Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A blanket ban of it isn't a good idea, it's possible that you could add the source with commentary but I don't recommend it. Certainly not in the lede, certainly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are countless wiki football pages that cite the CIES Football Observatory in body and lede. This isn't new. If, all of a sudden, somebody thinks CIES has "questionable notability" or isn't "appropriate" then the burden is on them to back up their claims with evidence. I have tried reaching out to Matthew hk and Mattythewhite on their talk pages after they reverted my edits. Still haven't received an explanation. BTW the phrase "most valuable player" came verbatim from the Forbes and Goal articles I cited in the edit. Retrofan781 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering player value is quite subjective and clearly changanle, it really shouldn't be in the lede of any articles. If it is, it should probably be removed. I've not looked at the source in question, but the term itself doesn't seem Lede worthy at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Most rankings and awards in sports are subjective and changeable, including Ballon d'Or, FIFA World Player of the Year, even statements like "greatest player of all time", "best player in the world" etc are quite subjective and changeable. Yet they have been used countless times in ledes. Please show me a rule that says ledes shouldn't contain subjective statements. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrofan781: Your claim that you did not receive an explanation from me is not true, see my reply. And you know that as it received a response from you. Anyway, I agree with the reasoning laid out by Matthew hk and Lee Vilenski, that this content should not be included given the questionable notability of CIES and the subjective nature of player values. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite What explanation did I receive from you? The one that you yourself struck out? All you have done is change the goalpost, and refuse to explain your reasoning. In other words, you stated your opinion (blanket statement) while providing no logical explanation for why you deleted my content without following WP:normal protocol. If not, please post a link to said explanation. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the claim that CIES has questionable notability is patently false. CIES is mandated by major organizations like FIFA, UEFA, City Football Group, IOC etc (Source). If CIES studies weren't noteworthy, they wouldn't routinely get published by major outlets like FIFA, UEFA, ESPN, Goal, Forbes, etc. I have already explained this to Matthew hk on his talk page, yet he hasn't responded to any of the points I made (read WP:Discuss with the other party), and continues to present this claim here without providing any facts to support it. Retrofan781 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There would be a very long list of most valuable according to X source. The X could be OPTA, IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, etc., or just according to their actual transfer fee. Some of them have no doubt in notability to put it in main text and notable to add to the lede which lede should always act as a summary of the main text. However, the reporting of CIES' model , sometimes seem a sarcasm manner (See the blog entry of ESPN correspondent), which at least it is not a material on the lede. Moreover, CIES' ranking is dynamic, which is a nightmare if you insist to add it and then update the change in ranking (if any) each month. Based on these reason, CIES' ranking is a trivial content and don't have a merit to add it to the main body of the biographical article. While award (the first, the "most" award, if any) by IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, at least they are static, (the best player award in X year did not change), which may merit to add to "award and honor" section. Matthew hk (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing sarcastic in that ESPN article per se. It just gives a detailed explanation of the computer algorithm CIES uses for transfer values and the different variables that go into it. Not sure what you are trying to say there. If you're trying to imply their rankings aren't perfect, we already knew that (see my response to Lee). Like I told him, no sports rating system is perfect and 100% objective. Doesn't matter if its voter-based, or computer generated, both have subjectivity. You can cherry-pick flaws in any rating system including Ballon d'Or which has tons of news articles criticizing it (for example). So just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean you toss it in the trash. At least with computer ratings they have minimal bias and trend towards objectivity as opposed to human polls which are biased by definition (see Wikipedia:Sports rating system). And please name one wiki policy or guideline that says that only "static" ratings should be allowed in articles and ledes? Sounds like an arbitrary, made-up rule on your part. The fact that computer rankings like CIES, FIFA world rankings etc are more up-to-date and accurate is a pro, not a con. Even subjective statements like "best player in the world according to xyz source" are equally (if not more) changeable. Do you think such statements should be removed from existing ledes of top players too? Why or why not? By your logic, wouldn't they be a "nightmare" to maintain like you suggested (which is a logical fallacy btw, see Wikipedia:Appeal to fear). Lastly, you still haven't explained how this any of what you said shows CIES has questionable notability. Notability means being worthy of attention. ESPN has continued to publish articles citing CIES studies long after the article you linked to was published (as have all other major publications and organizations) so clearly they still think CIES is notable and worthy of attention. So again your logic doesn't follow. And your removal of the CIES studies from the lede altogether is not consistent with wiki guidelines (read WP:Reliable_sources#Scholarship, WP:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and WP:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). Retrofan781 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the addition of this info to be utterly ridiculous. A player isn't worth anything until a team makes a bid for them, not really. Furthermore, these estimated values fluctuate all the time, and different sources can come to different conclusions. There's nothing concrete here whatsoever. – PeeJay 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your concerns have already been addressed above. Your rationale can be applied to statements like "best player in the world" or "best in the world according to xyz source" which are currently used in the ledes of many players. What wiki policy/guideline says articles shouldn't contain content that is subjective or can change with time, even if it came from reputable sources. I'd imagine the vast majority of content on wikipedia is subjective and can fluctuate with time. Whats so "ridiculous" about that? (see Wikipedia:Appeal to ridicule). Retrofan781 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please stop disguising mainspace pages as Wikiproject ones? Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Retrofan781:, You can find news reporting about Ballon d'Or on newspaper from all over the world, but i doubt there are many source reporting CIES (say, 50 countries), especially Mbappé as the most value player by the estimation of CIES. WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE applies. Matthew hk (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute on Trent Alexander-Arnold's page

Hi all, to avoid getting myself involved in an edit war may I please request assistance in respect of a dispute on the page of Trent Alexander-Arnold. The most recent edits relate to a semi-contentious sentence in the lede which a new editor continues to change. The editor in question, Jurgenflopp123, persists in changing wording in respect of the esteem in which the player is held. Given that the users name is an obvious mockery of Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp, I don't think it is far-fetched to assume that these edits (in respect of a Liverpool player) are not done in good faith. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of anything saying "best in the world", without it being attributed to a specific source. But the idea of only defining it to a single season is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any non-English writers who have made this assertion? I don't think the Liverpool Echo can be treated as a neutral source on this sort of claim. Spike 'em (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply: I will have a look for non-English writers and see what can be found. I think the Echo piece is iffy in any event and can probably be removed. It is supplemented by more reliable and impartial sources such as ESPN (US), the Guardian (UK) and now The Times. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The opinion expressed is clearly synthesis. Please either cite an organisation of merit that has identified him as such, or place the language in the voice of the people described. It is also not appropriate in the first few sentences and should be within the body of the article. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply What sort of organisations would qualify? And do you have any suggestions on how to make the voice apparent? I do, however, disagree that the placement is inappropriate. It is quite common for these statements to be included in the lede. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It'd be appropriate when a player has won titles, awards, and has played more than 1 season, where the opinions expressed are coming from notable individuals and are clearly expressing their opinion (i.e. Pele). But personal opinions should be placed in the voice of that person where possible or attributed to them, and we should not be synthesising "greatest" or "best" by throwing three or four unrelated and mixed articles of different degrees of laudatory content and using it as the basis for the claim (that is Synthesis and close to OR). It is unfortunately common for people to get hyperbolic about footballers, this seems like one of those situations. Try putting Trent into context - where is this list of "World Class" fullbacks, what are the criteria, how many "among the best fullbacks in Europe" are there? And by organisations we are talking FIFA, UEFA, The Premier League, PFA Awards, national newspapers of actual standing (not the Echo, nor tabloid), and sporting organisation awards or long established awards from media with actual gravitas. Bold claims require bold sourcing with the actual words included that are being reflected. Koncorde (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What a load of ffffancruft. Considered best in the world by whom? A few starry eyed Liverpool,supporters. Everything that's wrong with football players articles on WP. Half those reference don't even support the 'opinion'. One of them says 'he becomes one of the best in the world if playing Fifa19 in career mode' give me a break. Bollocks like that shouldn't be in the article let alone in the lede. Clear violation of COI by anyone who puts that crap in any footballers articles. At least until they have been up on the podium for Balon d'or of Fifa best player. ClubOranje^T 10:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your points. While I understand how my username can be displeasing to some section of fans, it is a mere joke and I apologize for the same. However, I want to point out that the edit made by me in the article was driven by the nature of me being righteous and neutral, as the article stated a 20 years old player as "one of the best in the world" when neither of the sources mentions that. Furthermore, as already pointed out in this discussion, one of the cited sources that actually did call him "best" used a video game (FIFA 19) to make the case. I still stand by my reasoning. However, I would definitely accept the decision whether it goes in favor of keeping the bold statement or removing it. Jurgenflopp123 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear "one of the best full-backs in the world" is not supported by sources. Are you going to honour the consensus of this discussion and remove the line, @Liam E. Bekker:? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Have done so happily. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

UEFA Super Cup

Folks can I draw your attention to the above, user:DM7SZ is insisting on changing the participants from now-defunct states to the nationality of the successor states. Please check the edit history. I am now at 3RR with them, as well as at the limit of my patience and past my bedtime. Keep an eye on it and a few others in their contributions, doesn't look like they will take the advice, trying to quote UEFA guidelines that don't even support the argument. Crowsus (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That user has done the same with the Champions League articles. I've reverted, but we'll see where he takes it from now. – PeeJay 11:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That is because the facts are that both UEFA and FIFA recognized current member states as successors and inheritors of defunct national records. Paragraph 3 in the Yugoslavia wiki article states that with appropriate sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_national_football_team DM7SZ (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes but at the time they were in the cup they were part of the USSR and Yugoslavia. Which is why is makes sense to link to them instead. Classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And continuing to edit war is not the way to go while a discussion is ongoing. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written to be future proof. All events are written from the time it took place. The WP:MOS is site wide for these sorts of things. (Hopefully someone can find the guideline I'm searching for). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCPLACE is relevant. Hack (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"UEFA and FIFA recognized current member states as successors and inheritors of defunct national records" - exactly. National team records. Not club records. And even with the national team, we don't go back and claim that, for example, Serbia competed in the 1930 World Cup. Historical facts should be reported based on how they stood at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan national football team

Hi, an IP is adding the national flag to the article at Bhutan national football team. I'm not sure on the copyright status of these but I have seen them on lots of other articles.

Currently, there a few bots that are reverting this change, and it's been going on for a couple days. Anyone know what the status of this image should be. We are in a weird Mexican stand off between IP and bot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean edits like this adding the FA/national team crest? Yes they should be included but not if the image is copyvio/not properly attributed. GiantSnowman 14:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I did look at the image, and I couldn't see exactly what was wrong with it. Is it simply because it's being used on two pages, rather than one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The image just needed a rationale for its use on the national team page. I just added it, so there shouldn't be any more problems with the bot. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was something small. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok the rationale was removed as this case has already been discussed here. This would also potentially affect all other national teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of crests in national teams’ articles has been discussed more recently.Tvx1 18:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Yes it has been discussed, but a consensus what never reached that changed the way the policy us currently being applied; moreover, that discussion wasn't really about any one particular file and one particular use, but rather a more general discussion as to how one part of WP:NFCC is being applied or interpreted. That also wasn't the only previous discussion about UUI#17; there are more to be found in the WT:NFCC archives as well. None of them, however, seem to have led to a consensus being reached. Now, as I posted on your user talk, if you (or anyone) wants to pick up the baton and restart the discussion, then feel free to do so. At the same time, if you're only interested in having further discussion about the close of the WP:NFCR discussion related to the use of this particualar non-free file, then follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and do so as well. Just for reference, there have been quite a number of NFCR and WP:FFD discussions related to this non-free use over the years and all that I can remember seeing have been closed in the same way; different administrators working with files and non-free content issues have been fairly consistent in applying the NFCC the same way to this type of non-free use to not only sports team logos, but also other types of logos and branding. It might be a time for a re-consideration of this, but the consensus established over the years through discussions about this type of non-free use has been that it doesn't comply with relevant policy. It's probably going to take a fairly well participated WP:RFC to develop a consensus which can be generally applied in principle to this type of non-free use or change how relevant policy has been applied up to now, but even then some might not agree. Regardless, it's not something which can be decided on the talk page of one particular WikiProject since it deals with how a community-wide policy is applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a broad agreement that national football teams are not child entities as defined in WP:NFC#UUI#17.Tvx1 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was movement in that direction, but no formal consensus was established to overturn previous discussions about this kind of non-free use at NFCR and FFD. So, once again if you want to re-start the general discussion, then go ahead. If you want the NFCR close related to this file’s non-free use reconsidered, then follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There was more than enough support. There was really little opposition remaining against using these crest for premier national teams. I can't see why Bhutan needs to be singled out as an article where it isn't allowed while all the others allow it per the discussion I linked too. Even you agreed with using them for premier national teams. You appear to object now solely because that discussion was not formally closed by an administrator. That isn't a necessity for a discussion to have a usable consensus. Wikipedia operates on rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Given that you actually agreed with using these crests in these cases, your continuous edit-warring amounts to WP:POINT.Tvx1 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan is not being singled out. There have been quite a number of files removed over the years for similar reasons from similar articles by different administrators applying the NFCCP in a similar way, not just from articles related to sports teams but from articles about TV stations, radio stations, companies, and other organizations, etc. Administrators working with non-free files have been pretty consistent in applying the NFCCP this way, so it's going to take something more than an archived discussion (not even an RFC) that was never formally closed to start rolling all of those back. Also, I disagree with your reading of that WT:NFCC discussion as being a clear close in favor of allowing this type of non-free use; there was movement in that direction, but there were still things not sorted out and no real final agreement had yet been reached. Regardless, this particular file was removed by an administrator who closed the NFCR discussion about its non-free use; if you feel things have changed since then, follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and explain your position to the closing admin. At the same time, if you feel that the WT:NFCC discussion should be reopened or that an RFC is needed, then go ahead and do so at WT:NFCC. There's nothing pointy about removing a file which had been removed by an administrator as a result of an NFCR/FFD discussion as a violation of the NFCC; it's even considered an exception to 3RR. So, until that particular discussion about the non-free use of that particular file in that particular article (not a general broader discussion about a particular type of non-free content use) is revised or cancelled out by a WP:DRV, etc., the consensus established by that NFCR discussion stands and the file shouldn't be used in the article until such a time that new consensus for the non-free use of that particular non-free file is established. However, you should discuss things with the closing admin first as a courtesy if that's what you intend to try and do.

The Bhutan team article was protected by an administrator (who, by the way, was also a participant in the WT:NFCC discussion you're citing in support of re-adding the image). That administrator has been one of the main contributors to the Bhutan team article over the years; if the WT:NFCC discussion clearly established a new consensus in favor of the file's use in the article as you're claiming, he (or the other admin participating in the same discussion) would've re-added not only this file, but also others which had been removed for the same reason quite some time ago. Instead, he removed the file before protecting the article and left an edit summary which said take it to the NFCC forum or article talk; you, however, didn't really heed that advice, but instead went and restored a non-free use rationale to the file's page for a particular use which was deemed to be a NFCC policy violation by another administrator. In addition, you don't appear to have edited the Bhutan article at all until the other day when you re-added the file, which is almost three years after the WT:NFCC discussion you're referencing was archived. So, it's not clear why you're suddenly worried about Bhutan being singled out or finally trying to apply this "consensus" you claim was established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly's behaviour regarding this issue points to a monomania, and (as can be seen from the wall of text above) he is something of a 'time burglar'. While you are very obviously correct, Tvx1, please be aware that dozens – if not hundreds – of us have been down this path, only to drop the stick rather than make it our life's work. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Related league competition to cup competition

Hi, quick question: the top 2 teams in the Lebanese Second Division are promoted to the Lebanese Football League (1st division). Those two teams also qualify for the Lebanese Challenge Cup, a cup competition between the 7th to 10th placed teams of the 1st division (the 11th and 12th get relegated) and the two promoted teams. Long story short, should Lebanese Second Division be a "related competition" in the infobox of Lebanese Challenge Cup? And also, should the Challenge Cup be considered a "domestic cup" in the infobox of the Second Division?

Thanks in advance, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Is there anyone here that can assist in reverting an IP on this article? The table they are adding is WP:TOOSOON as the June rankings have not been released yet. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Igor Štimac

Needs the input of language expert as three editors are disputing the correct writing of the surname, Štimac or Štimać. Article name has been moved many times over the last week so further input most welcome as discussions have become a little heated.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheFinalBall is not a reliable source

Please can somebody review/revert the edits of 193.117.153.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring and insisting on using TheFinalBall as a source for non-league player stats? I've reached 3RR at Bradley Bubb. GiantSnowman 09:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've explained to them why TheFinalBall isn't RS, pointed out where they'd misunderstood its figures (which are all comps on the front page, you have to click through to each individual season to get stats by competition), and changed Bradley Bubb's infobox per Soccerway. And suggested to them they go back and change any others where they've used TheFinalBall. But I'm not doing it for them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User has been banned, so you might need to fix his broken bits. Koncorde (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted his stats update, but added a source at Kavan Cotter for the transfer. GiantSnowman 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Player editing own article.

What to do with Annette Jacky Messomo. See version 1, before edits, version 2, after edits of an admin (had unsourced info deleted, see talk page for details), version 3, after player edited (just 1 sentence left, see version history). Info: She has 1 cap now for E. Guinea and played the women's champions league. Non notable and delete or restore and improve citations? -Koppapa (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI applies. GiantSnowman 18:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And it would need an OTRS verification to be considered. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

She has a senior international representation, so notable per WP:NFOOTY --SuperJew (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Jacksons2006 and User:Matthew111110

See [1] and [2]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

FC CFR Timișoara

Notable? Sourceable? AfD? DlohCierekim 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcable? Yes - see this. Notable? Based on the claims in the article (if they can be fully verified), yes. GiantSnowman 10:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Watford F.C. history found date

According to Watfords own website the club was found in 1881 as Watford Rovers, so I am confused by the article saying the club was formed in 1891, again the contradictory information, I still don't get how this is a GA article. What should be the correct year? Govvy (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

1898 (not 1891 - the article doesn't mention that date) is the date when two existing clubs merged to form Watford F.C. (as the club's own history actually mentions). I guess it depends which event is considered to be the current club's formation...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994)

Better luck in the second report? Let's see...

can the article be protected please? It continues to be ravaged by vandalism!

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Such reports should be posted at RPP. Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but i could swear i've seen the odd request filed here (filed AND addressed). By the way, more vandalism immediately after my original message. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)