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.

1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

I was curious, where did this sit in terms of WP:NSEASONS? The sources look like mainly primary sources. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all the references are to Coludata.co.uk, which is not operated by the club itself as far as I can see and therefore not a primary source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 57 11:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a definitive point where a season becomes non-notable, but being in the same league as Torquay Reserves isn't a promising sign.--EchetusXe 20:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion a WP:NSEASONS failure (it's really poorly defined) can still be overcome on WP:GNG grounds, but I don't see enough sourced material here showing the season was covered in any sort of substantial detail. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In think the season article has to consider one of a series of season articles for a club that has been a professional football club for 80 years, all but two in the Football League. The season in question was the one where they earned election to the Football League, which gives the season notability. The fact of their election to the football league is certainly verifiable through national press, even if the article doesn't include such sources. Verifiability is the requirement, not that it is verified in the artice, and I doubt anyone will dispute the fact they they were elected to the football league and have been part of it almost continuously since then.   Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So if there were more independent sources it should pass WP:GNG, I can see that, however the way I see it and under current guidelines, this and the previous seasons should be removed, the following season should be where the season pages start from in my view, it's a shame, Jasonakagary88 has done good work creating them. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well before this gets archived, I don't know how to combine articles into one AfD;

• 1937–38 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1938–39 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1939–40 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1945–46 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1946–47 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1947–48 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

Those ones above fail WP:NSEASONS maybe someone can combine them into one AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: instructions for nominating multiple articles in one AFD are at WP:BUNDLE, however you might want to nominate one to start with to gain consensus and/or consider nominating them separately anyway due because bundling a number of articles can result in a procedural close if there are potential lengthy GNG arguments. GiantSnowman 10:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I put 49-50 article to AfD first to see how it goes. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:English football updater

How come this is already being updated to reflect division changes which impact divisions which haven't even finished their current season? We now have the Leyton Orient article saying they "currently play in League Two" even though the 2018-19 League Two season hasn't finished yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that it should only be updated once each league's season has finished. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is ambiguity for the period when the season ends (and the club no longer plays in Division X) and the next season (when they currently play in Division Y). It's not correct to say that Leyton Orient currently play in either. Unless there is a more sophisticated way of modifying the text to say where they will play next season, it would be better to make the changes on July 1st or whenever the official change of season occurs.   Jts1882 | talk  06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion last year at Template talk:Scottish football updater and the consensus was to wait until the league in question was finished. Whilst there are still games to go, Leyton Orient are still in the National League and I think we waited until the playoffs concluded before we updated them but I could be wrong for the Premiership teams as the playoff final is usually the last game of the season and it was updated before then. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, when should the “current season” in the league infobox change? For example, when the 2018-19 season ends or when the 2019-20 starts? Nehme1499 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me that updated the new leagues for three clubs whose seasons are complete and their divisions next season are definite (Orient, Torquay and Stockport). My rationale was that we usually get editors trying to update the leagues of clubs as soon as promotion is confirmed, which usually involves removing the updater if it hasn't been updated already. I wasn't planning on doing any of the others until the FA release their league allocations. Number 57 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I supported the introduction of the updater in the hope it'd stop the premature addition of leagues the clubs don't play in, not institutionalise it. According to all reliable sources, Leyton Orient do not play in League Two and we shouldn't be claiming they do at least until the League Two season finishes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've undone the league changes for Orient, Torquay and Stockport. If anyone sees any other issues with my updates, they're welcome to ping me (I only saw this discussion when commenting on another). Number 57 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've watchlisted those three clubs, for when the enthusiasts notice... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• For the future, I don't see any problem with saying something like English League Two
  English League One (2019-20, promoted) in the infobox during the time between the end of the season and the start of the next. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A gap in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players' career statistics chart

I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players article does not specify if we should use the same pattern for the lines of apps and goals (i.e. League - Cup - Continental - Other) for every player article in this encyclopedia.

I'm mostly editing Brazilian and Spanish football, and while in Brazil I use the League - State League - Cup - Continental - Other pattern (since state leagues in Brazil are a very present championship and some of the teams do not have any national leagues to play) and in Spain, I use the League - Cup - Continental - Other (since there are no more "League Cup" tournaments or so on). However, I did notice that in England the most commom pattern is League - Cup - League Cup - Continental - Other.

Taking for an example Elias Martello Curzel, @Davidlofgren1996 changed the chart to a more "international" pattern, but he took Copa FGF as a national cup, which is wrong. Copa FGF is at most a state cup, so it's neither a state league nor a national cup.

My question is: should we standardize it? How many lines should we have in the chart? It gets very confusing since one user can establish his/her own standard. MYS77 ^✉ 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think if we already have the stats charts (which is another issue which should be debated IMO in another thread), then there should be a consistent standard between them, especially as players can and do move between leagues - a player won't necessarily be only in Brazilian or only Spanish football and as said above there are different patterns more appropriate to each. But in one table for a player it should be a consistent table, so therefore should be standard across the stats charts. Once we decide a consensus on what should be the standard, I also think we should have it as a template, to make it easier for new users to the field and who are less familiar with the consensus reached to keep to the standard. --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In my limited experience, Brazilian state leagues have been categorised as 'Other' (see eg Rivaldinho). GiantSnowman 07:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: This leads to a bunch of questions, such as: why Brazilian leagues should be categorised as 'Other' and the English League Cups should have a line? State leagues are as important in Brazil as League Cups are in England... And to categorise state leagues as 'Other' is a pretty way to mess up the sum and add a bunch of notes, since a non-division club (i.e. Portuguesa) would play in the state league and in some state cup to complete the year-long calendar (in this case, Copa Paulista). This state cup would be (and is currently) categorised as 'Other'. MYS77 ^✉ 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Numerous countries have league cups, not just England - but how many countries have a 'state league' set-up like Brazil? GiantSnowman 14:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with categorising state leagues in Brazil as "other". Most Brazilian players will play much more often in state leagues than they will in national leagues, and these leagues are notable enough to warrant season articles on wikipedia (when anyone can be bothered creating them). When editing Brazilian player articles I mostly see a split between what MYS77 describes and an approach which has the state league "season" as a separate line in the table to the national league "season", thus maintaining a league - cup - continental - other layout which matches other countries. I prefer the former, which is fine for the vast majority of players who don't leave Brazil, but appreciate a more compromising approach may be needed for expats. Gricehead (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Yep, that's exactly what I'm asking... For an example, I do categorise state leagues in 'Others' when it comes to non-Brazilian players (i.e. Jonathan Copete, Carlos Andrés Sánchez), since they didn't play in a state league for the vast majority of their careers. What I'm trying to do here is to know if it's okay to add them for Brazilian players who played the most of his career in Brazil. MYS77 ^✉ 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Same with Christian Cueva - we should not categorise State League differently for different players. Either it has its own column for all, or it is 'Other' for all. GiantSnowman 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The other category tends to imply less important games. Brazil is unuusual in having state leagues as an important part of their football structure. Wikipedia presentation should reflect this. While generalisation and standardisation are good guiding principles, flexibility and completeness are also important. Here I favour the latter pair.   Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've also always categorised state league stats in "Other", due to other examples such as Neymar. However, I'm in favour of adding a state league column for all players; makes sense given their importance in Brazilian football. R96Skinner (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@MYS77: I have been thinking about this for a while, and most of my Brazilian page creations have fit with the way I format the stats. However, I think for Brazilian footballers (who have played in their respective state leagues), there should be a standard.

I think that League - State League - Cup - Continental - Other works, with competitions such as the Copa Paulista falling under the 'Other' category. If a player moves to a team that competes in a League Cup, this should be specified, i.e. League - State League - FA Cup - League Cup - Continental - Other. This makes sense to me as some players would never play in a league cup, and some would never play in a state league, therefore they should be added when necessary. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an example, I have updated Adílio (footballer) to this new format. This player has played in both Brazil and Portugal, has played in a state league and a league cup, so I have blanked out the state league column for the Portuguese clubs, and blanked out the league cup column for the Brazilian clubs. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, also in Adílio (footballer), @Davidlofgren1996 and I were raising another question: when a player is only playing in a Brazilian lower league structure (basically in a "non-division" status, only playing state leagues and cup state leagues), should we add the state leagues in the Division column or not? I, in my current edits, do this type of approach (Diego Pituca is a clear example), but David thinks it's not actually accurate to add them to avoid confusion (and I do think he has a point there, but adding is quite correct in the Brazilian football structure). What do you guys think @Jts1882, @R96Skinner, @Gricehead, @GiantSnowman? MYS77 ^✉ 22:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can only echo what you said, @MYS77. I do the same in terms of division, e.g. Leomir Soares Cruz, but understand it could lead to confusion but it's probably the best way to display - unless we agree to switch to adding a state league column, then it would be self-explantory so no need to add state league under division. R96Skinner (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Record section of Mohamed Salah

What in the world happened to the record section on the Mohamed Salah article. it looks like some Liverpool fanboy or proud Egyptian tried to add as many records as possible. I know the consensus of this particular issue, that not all records are equally important to include, which is why many got deleted both from Messi's and Cristiano's pages. Of course it's not up to me to decide or anything, but I see a clear bias and problem with this, as other footballers had similar records taken away from their pages, but somehow Salah's get to stay?

Fourth Fastest Player to reach 50 Goals Milestone in Premier League history: 72 games (only Andy Cole (65), Alan Shearer (66) and Ruud van Nistelrooy (68), have reached the milestone in fewer appearances) What the hell is even this?? that's not even a record, far from it actually. Fourth? really?
Egypt's Third all-time top scorers: 39 goals (behind Hossam Hassan 69 goals, and Hassan El-Shazly 42 goals) Third??? so, also not a record.
Highest-scoring Egyptian in Serie A history: 35 goals in 81 games Might as well do the same for other footballers then? would mean we get to double or even triple the record section of both Messi and Cristiano with this logic.
Most goals by an African player in a UEFA Champions League season: 11 goals in 2017–18 This one makes a little more sense, but still, would need to add the same to other footballers pages too.
Highest-scoring Egyptian in Premier League history: 50 goals in 72 games Should we do this for all nationalities who scored most goals in a leage?? SteamingStars (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can all be removed in my opinion. Kante4 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything of note (ie actual achievements covered in detail by reliable sources) can be mentioned. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean it isn't worth noting that he's the all-time highest-scoring Egyptian in Premier League history out of a huge total of ELEVEN players? You know, you may be right ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of not including anything that wasn't actually awarded by a governing body. Being a top scorer with an RS is suitable for prose in most occasions, but hardly in the achievements section. These fit statistics cruft to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Notts County F.C.

Some eyes on this article would be useful as I'm already up to three reverts. Semi-protection would be particularly helpful! Cheers, Number 57 19:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

But you're an admin, you could do it yourself! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that it's not obvious vandalism and I've already reverted three times, some people may take an issue with me semi-protecting it. Although Kante4 has helped out, it's still being changed. Number 57 20:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: Cleaned it up a bit. Just semi-protect it. It's not that controversial - I for one support you. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes

Is there any reason for the space between the navboxes at the bottom of this page but not this one? I can't work it out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Stevie fae Scotland: The Kilmarnock seasons template had a use DMY dates template attached, which created a line break. I've removed it on consistency grounds/fixed the issue (if this is wrong, revert me.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think navboxes need those templates, do they? Thank you very much for sorting it Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but willing to admit I'm wrong if it comes down to it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Stoke City formation date

Please can someone ensure this article stops being reverted.

While the club itself claims 1863 as its formation date, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and plenty of evidence that Stoke Ramblers, who merged with Stoke Victoria CC in 1878 to form Stoke FC, were formed in 1863.

Field magazine of 1868 states that ‘a new club has been formed [in Stoke-upon-Trent] for the practice of the association rules under the charge of H.J. Almond’, and the Birmingham Daily Post reported on a Stoke Ramblers game in 1868 by saying that the club was newly founded that season.

These sources are continually removed from the article, and the incorrect information put back on. Again, there is NO evidence that the club was formed in 1863. A date cannot be accepted as fact just because the club itself says so. Same goes for Worksop Town, Cray Wanderers and plenty of others.

Just because a year is on a club badge, doesn't mean this should be accepted as evidence of a club's foundation year. Kivo (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd put 1863 or 1868 (disputed), and then outline the background in the club history section Jopal22 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not really disputed among football historians though. There is zero evidence that Stoke City were formed in 1863. Contemporary reports (Field magazine, Birmingham Daily Post) all state that the Stoke Ramblers club was new in 1868. Kivo (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How about you and Add92 stop edit-warring, as you are both in danger of breaching WP:3RR (sorry I miscounted edits) and try to find a compromise which mentions both years and the doubts. How reliable is the playingpasts website? I saw something come up on twitter about this today, which I guess is what the impetus behind this. Spike 'em (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The Playing Pasts website includes original research, and the Birmingham Daily Post source (which keeps getting deleted) is as contemporary as you can get - it quite clearly states that the club was a new one created for that season (1868/69) Kivo (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will edit the article to show 1863 as being disputed, while showing why 1868 is generally accepted by most football historians. It will be reverted. Kivo (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the source you state says "However, the origins and early history of the club is unclear." I would say the club celebrates 1863 as the date of formation, but some football historians contest this and believe the club was formed in 1868.

To say "1868 is generally accepted by most football historians" is way too strong. Plus you shouldn't just go ahead and make changes again if the article is in dispute. Suggest a change on the talk page and try and reach consensus. Jopal22 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about this at Talk:Stoke City F.C.#Protected. Thanks.--Add92 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Vic Kamara

Hello. Can anyone check this article. Has Kamara played and scored for Eupen, Kecskeméti and Kasımpaşa? Does he pass WP:NFOOTY? I have doubts. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Biwom: I share those doubts - I suggest you PROD. GiantSnowman 10:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I also share those doubts. Found absolutely nothing in a web search. Searching his full name brought up only Wikipedia on one search, first time that has ever happened. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the TFF website, no Kamara played for Kasımpaşa during the 2015–16 or 2016–17 seasons. Looks like a hoax article. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Is winning promotion an "honour"?

Quick question - for the purposes of an "Honours" section in a player's article, is gaining promotion by finishing third or even fourth in the league an "honour"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe so. IMO "honours" are when you win a division, cup etc. The rest could probably be described as "achievements". Number 57 18:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You get a cup for winning the EFL Championship playoffs, but not for qualifying by finishing 2nd in the league, yet the latter is more of an achievement than the former......Jopal22 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It depends how you define "honour". Players receive a medal for finishing third in EFL League Two. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not for me aswell, like Number57 said. Kante4 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is an honour. This is discussed every few months. As long as the honour is referenced then that trumps "imo promotions aren't an honour so I'm removing it".--EchetusXe 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with N57 and K4 - no. GiantSnowman 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: How is it an honour though? It's one thing to be able to source the fact that the club was given a trophy and the players given medals for winning the play-offs, but is it traditionally listed among the player's honours in a biography? – PeeJay 19:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

David Wagner profile at the LMA. Are there any comprehensive footballer biographies that don't have play-off success in their honour list? Can't picture it myself.--EchetusXe 19:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And do those include "winning promotion" as league runners-up as an honour? – PeeJay 19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, at least that link makes special note of the fact that winning promotion is not an honour in the same way as winning an actual trophy is. – PeeJay 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1st place is an honour, everything else is runner up which we generally don't include. By all means it can be mentioned within the biography, and should be, but it's probably not a significant footnote in a game that has lots of promotions each season. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Neil Warnock has more promotions than anyone else in the game (as far as I know) and his honours section is hardly cluttered. Compare to Cristiano Ronaldo's honours section, a man who has never been promoted but has won countless other honours. Hmm, has anyone else compared Neil Warnock and Cristiano Ronaldo before?--EchetusXe 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What if you get a silver medal at the olympic football event?Jopal22 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Medalists have their medals listed in the infobox.--EchetusXe 08:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick observation: The question was asked regarding promotions in a player's article and the examples of the people for including it are David Wagner and Neil Warnock, both managers at the time of the mentioned promotions. I would think a promotion is more notable for the manager of the team than one of the players (as in the manager is more responsible than one player). --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The honours is suppose to list the silverware a player has earned, if there is no silverware given for second place in the league, then no honour should be present in the list. Thats how I view it anyway. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Govvy. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:KARLSRUHER at Leroy Sané

Could anyone have a look at the recent edits at Leroy Sané? There is an IP that insists on Schalke instead of Schalke 04 in violation of WP:KARLSRUHER. I don't want to edit war. --Jaellee (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That page is an essay and is not an official rule or guideline that has to be followed. Empty argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.211.128 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

a) You're wrong, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#WP:KARLSRUHER and Ron-Robert Zieler

b) Please sign your edits. --Jaellee (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The page itself says it is an essay and not a policy or guideline so I'm not wrong. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless the consensus here agreed to follow this essay and you are deliberately going against it. --Jaellee (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care, its not a rule or guideline so I refuse to follow it. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's what you have to do. Call it a rule, guideline or consensus, that's what we do and it is correct. So, stop the edit warring. Your statement to now follow it is not good... Kante4 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to follow an essay, its not an official rule or guideline. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But there is consensus to use it. Kante4 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't care I'm not going to follow anything that isnt an official rule or guideline. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User now blocked for 24 hours. Was too late here in the night to fill in a correct request (my bad) at the edit warring board but El C (talk · contribs) took care of that. Kante4 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The attitude of this IP was really worrying. --Jaellee (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Season already finished?

Do we already list the the winners of a league even if there are still two matchdays to go? In the 3. Liga there is an editor that insists inserting the winners of the 2018–19 season. Osnabrück has already secured the first place, but as I said, the season is not over yet. --Jaellee (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Serie A, for example, already lists Juventus as the winners so I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source confirming that a club has won the title, I don't see the problem. Obviously there's always the slight theoretical possibility that something could come to light to cause them to be docked points or otherwise get stripped of the title, but that could happen even after the season has ended, so I don't think we really need to consider that an obstacle..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:대한민국_헌법 on UEFA templates

대한민국_헌법 (talk · contribs) has been editing UEFA templates without explaining the changes. SLBedit (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Merging of "English football clubs in international competitions" and "English clubs in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League"

At some point after the season ends I was going to merge English clubs in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League into English football clubs in international competitions. This will involve essentially redrafting the article, and I will add references where there are a lot missing at the moment. Just thought I'd give a heads up here in case anyone has any concerns. Jopal22 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Argentine Superliga move

Is Mikelelgediento's move of the Argentine Primera División to the Argentine Superliga correct? I'm not sure so wanted to see what others felt before potentially contesting the move and/or linking to it via other articles. Mikelelgediento says its the "Current name of the competition", they aren't wrong (though it would be Superliga Argentina, rather than Argentine Superliga... right?) but I thought its generally more expected that the article's is consistent with others? Similar leagues are named with ___ Primera División (e.g. Bolivian Primera División, Paraguayan Primera División) despite differing official names. R96Skinner (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. @Mikelelgediento: this needs a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, the same user also moved the Superliga Colombiana article to Colombian Superliga (which was originally created under the latter name but was soon moved to its native one), but seeing that the articles for the other South American super cup competitions such as Supercopa Argentina or Supercopa de Chile are also titled with their native names makes me wonder whether that move could be contested as well or the other super cup articles should be renamed that way (including the articles for each and every edition of these tournaments in order to keep consistency). CodeMars04 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, contest them - I don't think the pages should be moved without discussion, especially away from the standard with no good reason given. GiantSnowman 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Move reverted. CodeMars04 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, here Mikel.
The name Argentine Primera Division, is outdated and content an old name of the current Argentine Superliga which is organized by the Argentine Superliga Civil Association (SAF) an organising body independent of the Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (AFA) —like La Liga is organized by the Liga Profesional de Fútbol (LPF) which is independent of the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF)— in contrast, the former competition Argentine Primera División was organized directly by the AFA until 2017. The official name of the competition is Superliga Argentina and it is better known by that name.[1] [2] [3] [4] Beyond that I do not know anyone who speaks English that knows the Argentine Superliga as "Argentine Primera División".
I also consider that it is a bit strange that the article contents words in Spanish that are perfectly translatable. The same happens with the article Superliga Colombiana. I mean, the Danish Superliga is not called Dansk Superliga or Danish Superligaen neither the Albanian Superliga as Albanian Kategoria Superiore or Superliga Shqiptare. Mikelelgediento (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that: i) The Primera División is not a "former" competition, rather, the Superliga is the same Primera División competition under a different name, and ii) the regulations for both the 2017–18 and 2018–19 seasons, which are the ones that have been under SAF purview so far, refer to the competition in their introduction as "Campeonato de Primera División" (First Division Championship), which implies that the "Primera División" name is still deemed valid by both AFA and SAF. Considering that, and the standard currently used for other similar leagues, I don't think the current name is incorrect or inaccurate. CodeMars04 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And even if there has been a change in the name (and I'm not convinced so far) an undiscussed move was entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 07:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is entirely appropriate to label someone's contribution entirely inappropriate when we have WP:BOLD. WP:RM states If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. @Mikelelgediento:'s response above indicates they felt it was a valid justifiable move, and also that they are willing to discuss. Seems to be following WP:BRD just nicely so far. Just saying. ClubOranje^T 09:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Three editors in quick succession raised issue with the moves. BOLD does not apply to those kind of moves. It was, at best, naive to presume there would be no issues. GiantSnowman 09:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely WP:AGF allows for some naivety? Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did those users raise issue with the move before or after the pages were boldly moved? If after, is the user supposed to have used his crystal ball to know that they were going to raise issue, or his time machine to go back and not make the move? It seems the first user to raise it here even stated the article name it was moved to wasn't wrong. And as with the Ladies club names below, I believe we should be naming things by their names, or at least COMMONNAME, not some predefined consistent format that might satisfy my Aspergers. Perhaps Mikelelgediento feels the same and thought the move would not be disputed. Bold absolutely applies. ClubOranje^T 10:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the user is supposed to use their crystal ball - one called WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 10:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The name is not incorrect but outdated. Of course the name of the competition is that, but the Spanish La Liga also has in its name Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Primera División (National First Division Championship) however the article is not called Spanish Primera División because it is more popular with the name La Liga, it's a brand. The same happens with the Argentine Superliga, since 2017 that name became its brand, the name of a product. The name Campeonato de Primera División Superliga because it is a Top-division competition, but I think it is unnecessary to give it a generic name when the tournament already has its own name that is part of the brand. Mikelelgediento (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Simply start a move proposal on the article's talk page. I for one would support a move per WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

consistency with names of teams in the FA WSL

It seems there are a few formats for clubs in the FA WSL (and Championship): there's "W.F.C." suffix (Arsenal, Birmingham City, Brighton & Hove, Bristol City, Manchester City, Charlton Athletic, Durham, Leicester City, Manchester United, Sheffield United), "F.C. Women" suffix (Chelsea, Liverpool, Reading, West Ham United, Lewes), "L.F.C." suffix (Everton, Yeovil Town, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Millwall Lionesses, Tottenham Hotspur), and even one with no suffix (London Bees). Should there be consistency with these? Should they all have the same suffix (like the F.C. ending for almost all the clubs in the Premier League apart from a handful of A.F.C.)? What about "W.F.C." and "F.C. Women"? --SuperJew (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Short answer, No. Longer answer, Championship and Superleague teams listed by the FA use those suffixes (although some without the FC bit). It is not for Wikipedia to change the club names. To take a random example from above, the Tottenham Ladies FC website link in the infobox takes you to Tottenham Hotspur Ladies Football Club, while Liverpool have Liverpool FC Women There might be a case for renaming some, as this has Chelsea listed as Chelsea Ladies FC, which doesn't match the article. ClubOranje^T 09:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A side note based on an upcoming name change, that "Spurs Ladies" will be renamed to "Tottenham Hotspur Women" starting from next season thanks to their promotion to the top flight. I guess their official name listed by the FA will be updated accordingly, and the article will need moving, in due course? I think I read somewhere that all teams in the top flight will be changed to being "Women" rather than "Ladies", but I can't find that source anymore --Philk84 06:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The page names on Wikipedia should be named after what the clubs are named after. I have noticed some teams have changed their names in the recent past. My thinking is that every club participating in the WSL should have the suffix "W.F.C." since the full name would be Women's Super League. Currently in the 2019–20 season, only Everton and Tottenham have the L.F.C. suffix. Whether Everton may wish to change to "Everton W.F.C.", they should decide the name change. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Players being released

Just a polite reminder to all editors given the recent number of Football League clubs announcing their 'released/retained' lists - any players who have been "released" will not leave the club until the end of their contract on 30 June 2019. As such, they should remain with their current club (on squad lists, templates, and in their own articles) until that time. GiantSnowman 09:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it relevant though if they have no games left? --SuperJew (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. It's simply not correct, and nothing stops players being 'released' and then signing a new contract. GiantSnowman 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree that when players get released in advance, the information of the season just gone (the tense, the division the club is in if they've moved divisions the following season etc.) should be as it is as of the last match played. Stoke City have released a list of free agents - I've viewed the Jakob Haugaard page and shows content which appears on 1 July 2019 (no club in lead, end year visible in the infobox) whereas Paul McShane (footballer) shows correct details as if the season has not expired. They should be changed on 30 June 2019 as GiantSnowman says on the latter article. The club article seasons say "The season covers the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019" so that's how I come to this comment. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the offending change at Haugaard's article. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: Stadium naming on UEFA articles

I know UEFA don't like sponsorship names and use other stadium names, should the UEFA articles we have also reflect that or not? Govvy (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so: we are not constrained by their MOS and would use the commonly recognised name at the point of time that the article was written. Spike 'em (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, was just looking through the UEFA articles earlier and some UEFA.com citations don't match up to stadium names, that's all really. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal W.F.C.

An anonymous IP address over the past couple of days has made edits to the page putting in the club logo but in the same day a bot removes the image saying it violates WP:NFCC. This appears to be inconsistent as the other WSL club articles have the logos in the articles. I feel like that's not right as the following was said to me from User:Struway2 in 2017 about club logos:- "club logos are copyright so we can't use them anywhere apart from the club articles." which I was not aware of until that edit was saved by Struway2. I should think it is fine to use the logo on the article as well as the men's since these two are affiliated with each other. From the page history, two registered users and two IP addresses have put in the logo only for this bot to remove it. One says the logo is owned by the club. I suspect that more people would agree that the logo is to be used correctly and that it matches other articles for the WSL champions. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a WP:NFCCP violation – policy does not restrict a non-free image to a single use, only to "Minimal extent of use" (and also note the phrasing of point 7, "One-article minimum"). However, the reason the image in question is being removed from Arsenal W.F.C. is that there is no non-free rationale tag for use in that article – see WP:NFC#Implementation ("It is important to remember that a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia. If the image is used in two separate articles, two separate rationales are needed, unique for both articles."). If this was in place (I've just added it), it's fine to use it there. Number 57 20:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Iggy the Swan: Not having a required non-free use rationale is a NFCCP violation (WP:NFCC#10c) and such files can be removed per WP:NFCCE. However, the reason this file is not being used in the Women's and Academy's articles is that its non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg and it was removed by an administrator as a result. If you look at the top of File talk:Arsenal FC.svg, you'll find mention of this discussion. So, if you want clarification on this or feel it should be reconsidered, follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with the closing administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: OK, will do. I agree about the reserve team's article not being an appropriate usage, but not being able to use it on the women's team article is a ridiculous situation given that they're a fully-professional club in their own right (and also inconsistent with the fact that many other clubs' logos are used for both men's and women's teams).

@Explicit: As the closing admin of the discussion in question, could you review this? Cheers, Number 57 23:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a logo specific to the Women's team (File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png) being used in the main infobox of the Women's article, but it was removed here and then subsequently deleted per WP:F5. It might be better to ask that that file be restored instead if it's still usable. Women's teams have been considered to be "child entities" of the parent club, which means the parent club logos are not automatically used by default. Some Women's teams do have their own specific branding and this is preferred to be used instead. WP:OTHERIMAGE is not really relevant here since the non-free use of badges in those other articles may be also not policy-compliant; they just haven't been discussed yet. WP:CCC, however, does mean that maybe a new consensus can be established; however, there have been attempts to previously do so at WT:NFCC for not only soccer but other sports team logos, but the consensus goes back a number of years and it's not been easy to come to an agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Marchjuly's comment above, I have restored the ladies' logo and added it to the article in question. ℯxplicit 00:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)