Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 141

WikiProject Football/Archive 141
Team information
Current team	LASK / Juniors OÖ
Number	20 / 25

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 135

←

→

User:Sakiv

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but the user refuses to respond to me on their talk page, and I'm not a fan of WP:Noticeboards, so I've come here mainly for advice/assistance. Anyhow, there has been a long running dispute over the format of Argentina national football team results (2020–present) for a few months between mainly @Sakiv: and myself, @Stevie fae Scotland and Nehme1499:, starting with a discussion on the talk page, a posting at WP:3O and most recently, a posting at WP:DRN. Anyway, I was working on these kind of pages for CAF members today, and - quite foolishly, perhaps - ignored an edit conflict over Angola national football team results (2020–present) to publish my version over Sakiv's; Sakiv revered and I restored. Sakiv re-reverted with an edit summary of You can clearly see who created this!!!! (diff). My attempts to respond to this on their talk page, explaining WP:OWN (which must I admit was quite blunt) have been responded to by blanking that section on their talk page (diff) and reporting me to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (?). Anyway, I'm not quite sure how to talk constructively to this user when they refuse to respond to me, so any help would be appreciated. Anyway, I'll take a short wikibreak while I calm down a little. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"You can clearly see who created this!!!!": a prime example of WP:OWN. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Same MA. I've never been involved at DRN before so I've been a bit naive in my approach but I feel engaging will hopefully resolve things. Taking a break is a good idea, I've let my frustrations over this get the better of me at times as well so that's something I will need to learn from. Any advice that anyone can offer would be greatly appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I warned them for edit warring back in January 2021, and previously warned them in September 2019 for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. It would be nice to hear from @Sakiv: here to explain themselves, because unless they start edit co-operatively and in-line with community expectations they will end up blocked sooner rather than later. Giant Snowman 11:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

MFD - Club Task Forces

In line with past consensus reached on WikiProject Football that club specific task forces are not needed, as well as the fact they all appear to be inactive (see discussion 1, disccussion 2, and discussion 3), I have started a MfD for them here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/FootyClubTaskForces. I hope I did it correctly. I'm not familiar with the MfD process compared to the other move/rename/deletion processes. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist, Govvy, and SuperJew: since you all were involved in the previous discussion, you may be interested in this. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: To quote Emperor Palpatine; Wipe Them Out. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm for deleting them - don't think they have any place or role. --SuperJew (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy and SuperJew: The vote is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/FootyClubTaskForces not here RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Luke Gambin

I've recently removed a couple of international caps from Gambin's total per NFT which claims that two caps are from non-FIFA matches. However, since this is being challenged, I'm seeking some wider input on this. RSSSF seem to suggest these are all official matches, but from what I can interpret, NFT believe that the Ukraine friendly in 2017 is a non-FIFA match, plus another match in 2016, which I cannot determine. Have NFT simply got this wrong? LTFC 95 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

While NFT itself is reliable, I've found that NFT is very inconsistent/unreliable in assessing whether a match was official or not. RSSSF is definitely better at that (though, also not perfect). Another issue with NFT is that, as you have found yourself, it's impossible to understand what games they class as "non-FIFA". It just says that a certain amount of games is non-FIFA under the player's profile, but doesn't say which ones. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme; it's a shame because NFT is a great website but it seems there's no rhyme or reason as to which games they class as 'official' or not. So if there is an alternative source which confirms the games are official, count them. Giant Snowman 07:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: @GiantSnowman: Thank you both. Do you think it would be wise to replace NFT with Soccerway in this instance, as they clearly indicate the friendlies are recognised by FIFA? LTFC 95 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: No, Soccerway is often (very) partial to what international games the have in their database. For European international football, if I'm not mistaken, eu-football.info is the most reliable source out there. For Gambin, they show him having 30 caps and 1 goal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: As you're recommending it, perhaps you might know, I've wondered for some time. I'd like eu-football.info to be reliable, and would use it with enthusiasm and gratitude if it were so, but I haven't been able to establish a WP:RS pass to my own satisfaction. What makes eu-football.info a reliable source? They say they have a huge database of links to sources, but I could do that: who are they? do mainstream publications use them? what reputation do they have in the football stats field? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea personally whether they are reliable or not. I remember that a couple of people had strongly recommended it to me (and I had also came across it a few times), but I don't really deal with European international football so I'm not the best person to ask. Maybe someone else who deals more with the website might have a better answer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: From experience, I've found that Worldfootball.net seems to be fairly good for this kind of thing, which also has him on 30 apps and 1 goal. The two games that NFT claims are non-FIFA are the friendlies vs Czech Republic (27 March 2016) and Ukraine (6 June 2017), but I can't work out why. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Are the sources of this article reliable? Dr Salvus 09:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF and Calcio are. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: Are the other sources reliable? Dr Salvus 19:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Are players’ marks relevant/allowed in articles

I was about to write about a player that got the highest mark in a Serie A match for his team, but I remembered that I’ve never seen that on an article until now. Is it allowed or relevant? The source is Gazzetta dello Sport. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: What do you mean exactly? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: what do you mean by "players’ marks"? Do you mean that a newspaper gave each player a score for their performance in a game, and player X got the highest score? If that is what you mean, then no, that is totally trivial and not suitable to include -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a score for their performance, that’s what I meant. Sorry for not being clear enough.

Thanks for giving me the answer.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

To follow on from what ChrisTheDude said; if a particular performance is significant enough to merit mention in an article it would generally require more than just standard coverage in RS. For instance:

Every game of football has a man of the match. The significance of a MOM award is therefore tied to further discussion and review of the performance (for instance Beckham vs Greece which sent England to the World Cup) or the match itself being significant (a final of a competition, saving a club from relegation etc).
Goals are scored quite regularly. Notable goals being mentioned would be if it is on their debut, or against a rival, or a certain number have been achieved, or it is discussed as a wonder goal or goal of the season type accolade that draws more than just average coverage.
Clean sheets are generally not notable unless the achievement is significant i.e. winning a cup or defeating a rival.
There are dozens of player ranking systems, no single one is likely notable enough to merit its inclusion. Ranking by newspapers for an individual game is likely not significant at all, given every game someone may get a 10/10 (even if it is uncommon). But an award after a season such The Times stating "x was our player of the season" might be notable enough for inclusion. Similarly if they were to award a "performance of the season" (or more likely Month) that might be worth a passing mention - but it would need to be attributed.

Hope that helps. Koncorde (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say some newspaper highest ratings are actually notable to include, but of course not for any player and any high rating. But one example would be Gazzetta dello Sport that has only ever handed out a perfect 10/10 rating twice if I recall correctly, and 9.5/10 is very uncommon as well. These high ratings do usually receive coverage and I'd say a mention in a player's article if they receive such a rating for a match performance is relevant. – Elisson • T • C • 17:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the act of handing the 10 itself is enough. It is the subsequent coverage / discussion / reference to the score that gives it the notability and significance (otherwise you almost have to explain each time why the "10" is significant for inclusion).[1][2][3][4] Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of what I wrote ... :) – Elisson • T • C • 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly I misunderstood your intention, but I was just making it clear that the mere award (despite rarity) itself isn't necessarily inherently notable on the day it is awarded (I'm not sure as to whether it even counts as a WP:PRIMARY), but instead in retrospect or review from other secondary sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think what might be one point where I may or may not disagree with you is regarding what we actually mean by "notability" (and I thus realise I've used the wording above when it wasn't really what I meant). The WP:N guidelines (specificially WP:NNC) clearly state that notability guidelines does not apply to content inside an article. And since we're talking about mentioning or not mentioning a specific player rating within a clearly notable article (a player fulfilling the notability criteria), notability really has nothing to do with it. If there is a reliable source mentioning the rating, there is no need to fulfill any notability criteria (e.g. significant coverage). It boils down to due weight, balance, etc. That's why I brought up high Gazzetta dello Sport ratings, as they in my opinion have their place in player articles. And you don't need to provide references to prove significant coverage if such a rating is included in a player article. But then again, it is very rare that player ratings in general are relevant in player articles, and are more likely to be treated as fancruft. – Elisson • T • C • 00:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

By notable / significance for content I am generally only ever referring to the weight / balance, usually within the context of writing both concisely and in an encyclopaedic manner - i.e. a general avoidance of cruft like "x scored a goal, and got a 10 from The Times, the next week he got an assist and got a 9 from The Guardian" where people start cherry picking the most favourable coverage (which is already an issue for some unnamed high profile players bio's as it is). Just data about a player from myriad sources (like crosses completed, miles ran etc) all kind of merge into this biographical miasma which dilutes its significance.

However when Gazetto's "10" (or a particular goal, or performance, or sequence of play) is covered in a half-dozen other sources speaking to the significance of that moment I think that transcends cruftiness for even the most stingy editor. It's also super awkward to write about a rating awarded by the paper itself unless it's also going to write in the additional context of the significance of their award (which is where it's a bit WP:PRIMARY because they're flossing their own relevance), and that is why (to me) secondary sources are kind of critical to enabling a writer to both cite and write dispassionately about the content.

In other words; if Mark Lawrenson describes a goal as one of the best he has ever seen some people might like to include that. I personally think his opinion is liable to change, great goals happen regularly, and there are contrasting opinions etc so would prefer to use a secondary source which perhaps collates individual arguments and enables us to say something more significant than just "Mark Lawrenson said it was a great goal" such as BBC Goal of the Season and saying "the goal was suggested by Mark Lawrenson to be a contender for Goal of the season" (as a longwinded example). Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That really was helpful @Koncorde. Thanks for the response!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Coupe de France

Hello. The pages on the preliminary rounds of the 2015–16 Coupe de France, 2016–17 and 2017–18 are too large. it was decided to divide these pages into one for each regional group of the Coupe de France. I have completed dividing the page on the 2018–19 competition and I'm finishing the one on the 2017–18 edition. If you feel like it could you kindly help me divide the pages on the 2015-16 and 2016-17 editions? Dr Salvus 23:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Sheffield Wednesday season

Hi everyone - I keep being reverted by @Lincoln Owl: on this article when I update the current top scorers in the infobox and spell our their actual names. Lincol Owl doesn't explain why they are reverting this and he/she hasn't responded to my note on their talk page. Can someone help with this? It's getting very frustrating and it's beyond an edit war at this stage which I am partly to blame for but multiple attempts at communicating to them have proven unresponsive. Thanks.Rupert1904 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yours is the correct way of displaying the scorers. I understand if there were 10 joint-scorers, but two are easily displayable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Nehme1499:! Can anyone else reach out or warn Lincoln Owl? The user seems to have a history of destructive edits, doesn't explain reasoning for edits, and doesn't respond either on here or on their talk page.Rupert1904 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s been between 3 and 4 players all season - only now has it hit 2 players. And next week it’ll potentially be 3 again. Seeing as I edit the season page for this club for the past 3 seasons it will be reverted to Ruperts format once it feels needed - but seeing as Rupert has made one change to this page all season I don’t see why he’s moaning about it Lincoln Owl (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN the page; Rupert's previous editing history is no bar to him improving the article now. Spike 'em (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

They should worry... It was a blessed relief in mid-January when this seven-way tie got broken. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Youth international honours & stats

Hey all - I know the typical formatting for youth international stats is U17, U19, U21, etc., which I think works well, is understandable to a casual reader, and is concise. What I would like to propose/ask is abbreviating youth tournaments in honours sections so that everything is consistent. Take Phil Foden for example; in the England U17 and Individual portions of his honours section, I see U17, U-17, and Under-17. I would just like to abbreviate them all to U17. I understand if that is what these competitions are officially called and I am not proposing we change the article titles but just want to make sure it is okay to abbreviate all of them to U17 rather than use three different versions. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Displaying as 'U17' as opposed to 'U-17' etc. is standard, particularly in the infobox. Giant Snowman 16:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So all good for me to change U-17 and Under-17 to U17 in honours sections so that everything is streamlined and abbreviated in the same way?Rupert1904 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing U-17 to U17 is fine; Under-17 is more debatable, but if nobody opposes I see no reason not to. Giant Snowman 16:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So we should start piping FIFA U-17 World Cup into FIFA U17 World Cup? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In box and honours OK to pipe in my book, why do it in the prose? --85.243.89.253 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I am just suggesting for honours section anyway, not changing the article titles or in the prose.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

National soccer world champions

Hi all, this doesn't look like the best title for this topic. Would it be best to move it to something like "List of association football world champion national teams"? I can't think of a title that doesn't sound awkward when read out loud. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly a poorly worded direct translation. It seems a little WP:REDUNDANT when all the information is already covered at the main WC article. But at the very least, we must remove that ghastly slang phrase. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Is the article really needed? To me, it just sounds like it's being used to show that Uruguay are "four-time world champions", rather than two. I don't think it really adds more than what is already said in the main WC article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: I have renamed it but I have also AFD'ed it for that reason and for being a poor machine translation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: - AfD seems fair enough, didn't realise this was already covered. Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Heads up - Notability debate

There’s currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RFC_on_Notability_(sports)_policy_and_reliability_issues which impacts on WP:Football although I can’t see any input from the regular contributors here.--Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve read through that several times and find it very hard to work out just what change is proposed. People say support change or oppose change but it would be nice if there was a clear summary of the change proposed.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been involved on and off. No, I'm still not 100% on what people are trying to achieve. Giant Snowman 16:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm also pretty confused: for what I understand it wouldn't effectively change anything. There is already a precedent of articles being deleted for scraping through NFOOTY but not satisfying GNG, so I don't see what would be attained with this proposal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly cricket editors --SuperJew (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Free Agent who resigns with their previous team

How should it be recorded in the infobox for a player who has their contract expire but eventually re-sign with their previous team. Just extend the duration as if one section(ie. 2016- ) or create a second line (ie. 2016-2020 Team A 2021-Team A). This is for a player who had their contract expired on December 31, but then re-signed at the beginning of pre-season in March before the season started. Wanted to see how the community feels about this. What makes sense to me would be to just extend it in one stint because they didn't miss any games, however if they re-signed after the season started, I'd say a new line. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I would be more towards having two separate stints, but since the club didn't play any game in those three months, I don't know. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's a few days while behind-the-scenes contractual formalities are getting sorted, then treat it as one spell. If the player leaves the club and then re-signs a few months later, consider it as separate spells, so separate lines in the infobox - it's what has been done at Carlton Cole, Sam Hutchinson, Dylan Mottley-Henry and others... Giant Snowman 20:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Serdar Tasci

Hi, could someone take a look at the Wikidata entry for Serdar Tasci? I changed the spelling of his name to reflect what we use in his biography but was reverted with this quite startling rebuttal by an editor who has long been indefinitely blocked on this project. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A global lock would be a good idea. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mattythewhite I agree whith Nehme Dr Salvus 08:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried, but I have been "Warned." Funny how a user who has been blocked on three different projects and accuses people of being neo-nazis has the courage of "warning" others... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Juninho Pernambucano total free kicks, 75 or 77?

Evening. We have some conflicting sources for the total free kicks scored by Juninho. Some sources say 75, some 77. Without OR unable to identify which one is correct unless someone can check and verify with a list that has perhaps been published somewhere? Any ideas anyone? 75 seems to be the historic total, but 77 seems to be a more recent set of results - but often from less reliable sources, or from equally poor sources in both cases. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If sources differ than all I think you can say is "at least 75" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this going into NOTSTATS category? Giant Snowman 16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Juninho's FK tally is pretty relevant as he is supposedly the record-holder of FKs scored. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

...yet nobody knows how many he scored? Giant Snowman 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This YouTube video seems to show all 77 of his freekick goals. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not stats, but if he is the record holder, use the best source, and say "as of". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you guys say "NOSTATS" do you mean that we shouldn't display the fact that he scored 77 FK goals? Wouldn't that be the same as saying "X is his country's all-time goalscorer, with 50 goals"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, NOSTATS seems a bit of a non-factor. We're talking that there are plenty if sources to his achievements, just that there is disagreement between them and as a result the article will never be stable. I have removed reference to one total, and made the other a "at least 75" but was hoping someone could find a definitive list / sourcing (perhaps in a foreign lingo) that might wrap up the mistake. Koncorde (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We keep records of games and goals - not assists, not red cards, not number of thrown ins taken etc. That is all. Giant Snowman 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Who says we don't report assists and clean sheets if reliable sources show them? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

NOTSTATS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics... Giant Snowman 11:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

, you might as well state the amount of tackles someone makes. Outside of this specific purpose, as being the all-time top free kick scorer, I don't know why we would ever publish how many free kicks a player scored. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If a player was famous for having made 9000 tackles and reliable sources regularly talked him up as the all-time leading tackle maker, I wouldn't see any issue with mentioning that fact in his article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much, particularly if it makes up an important part of their career. The obvious examples are dead ball specialists for whom there are loads of referenced and detailed discussions of their achievements. I get we don't want extra columns etc and unnecessary clutter - but when you spend plenty of time saying things like "record holder" and someone is like "but what is the record?" it's probably pretty relevant. Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding sourced details of milestones other than goals / games played. If someone was known as a hot-head and was sent off 37 times in his career then mention of this in text of a career summary is fine. NOTSTATS says we should avoid Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. A single well-sourced career achievement mentioned in context is neither excessive nor unexplained. Spike 'em (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC) 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that we cannot accurately verify the claim! Giant Snowman 11:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well. I haven't been able to, but I am asking if someone else is able to. There may be a better source, a biography of his or of the club, season or something. Koncorde (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who mentioned NOTSTATS, so could you please decide what point you are arguing? If different sources give different numbers then we can either go the "at least 75" route or mention both figures. Spike 'em (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Simply that we need to be cautious about adding stats into prose (number of red cards, number of free kicks etc.), particularly when such a claim cannot be verified. Any problem that that principle? Giant Snowman 15:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If we are saying he is a renowned free-kick taker then some figures to back this up would be entirely in order. If the exact number is disputed, then explain this (in the text or as a footnote). We can verify that he has scored at least 75 free-kicks, so use that as a starting point. Spike 'em (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we say he is a renowned free kick taker only if a reliable source describes him as such. We do not do so based on the number of free kicks he scored. Giant Snowman 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Luckily there are plenty of sources saying this and including the actual number is useful information. Spike 'em (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources also list multiple heights for Cristiano Ronaldo, but we still list one (accompanied by a note). I would write "he scored 77 FK goals" with a note saying "Some sources attribute 75 FK goals" (or vice-versa). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

honours

did all your agreed with me if we don't puts runners up in honours place because fans want know his players wins the trophies not lose at the final and just became runnners up Wanroslan (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the competition, depends on what the player is notable for, and to what extent. Someone who has won thousands of trophies, runners up less relevant. Someone who won nothing but was on several runner up teams, suddenly it's more relevant. Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, if I'm not mistaken, we never show runners-up for leagues, whereas for cups we do (as players are awarded a physical medal). Same for bronze at the olympics, for example, but not 3rd place in a tournament where there is no 3rd-place match after the semi-finals (such as the CL). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not really important what fans want. We give out runner-up accomplishments for club competitions, and not for leagues generally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

but why appearances you all just write games at the league not in all competitions ? Wanroslan (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Because outside of the top countries, it's very difficult to consistently find statistics outside of the league. So we just show the league for everyone for consistency. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What a difficult? only league , domestic cup , champions league , europa league , super cup and club world cup Wanroslan (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith if your response to this is to go round vandalising articles. Spike 'em (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep. It's not easy to find the domestic cup, league cup, and super cup statistics of most countries. Not all countries are like the UK or Italy. For Lebanon, for example, we only know the league statistics from 2011. For Iraq, Jordan and Bahrain, we don't even know the league appearances (only goals). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Even in the UK it requires a lot of searching to find cup stats. There are published books containing the complete league stats of all players pre- and post-WW2, but they only cover the league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Hey, kind of new to this wikipedia thing and I was wondering if sources like footballgroundmap.com and pyramid passion are allowed despite being self-published, as I have seen them linked on pages, and they don't appear to be listed at the links. Also, was wondering if this is considered reliable, lafutbolteca.com (in Spanish). Sorry if this is just being rehashed. Thanks, AnApple47 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS and WP:RS. Giant Snowman 09:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

USL Second Division

Was USL2 fully professional in the early 2000s? Hack (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Worth raising at WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that it is, so feel free to ping me if a serious discussion about this pops up at some point. Just throwing some sources out there about this: here's an article from when Charleston Battery self-relegated from USL1 to USL2, describing the club and league as professional. There's an article from Charlie Reiter signing with Richmond Kickers in 2010 (and as you can see from his LinkedIn profile, he didn't have any other jobs that year.) Here's Richmond playing against a college team in 2010 and calling it a "Pro-Am Challenge". The United Soccer League called both USL1 and USL2 professional in 2009. And while some players technically had "other jobs", they were what Bobby Foglesong did while playing in Richmond (he's listed under Robert Foglesong on [5] this page): coach the youth teams within the club. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC lists of national football team results

A request for comment is open regarding the format of lists of national football team results artices here: Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present)#RFC:Format of Table. Input is welcome Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Stupid question

In about three years of editing, I've always asked myself: how is it that all my edits are tagged with one of "2017 wikitext editor", "Mobile edit", or "Visual edit"? In this talk page, I (mostly) seem to be the only one with these tags, why is that? (very stupid and useless question, I know). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

These affect every applicable editor. You have mobile edit because you're presumably editing from a tablet or phone? Visual edit because of WP:VE. No idea about 2017 Wikitext I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 21:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is: if one doesn't use the 2017 wikitext editor, mobile edit, or visual edit, what are they using? I thought that those were the three possible options. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware my edits aren't tagged with anything - I'm editing from a standard laptop. Giant Snowman 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: "2017 wikitext editor" doesn't mean the standard source editor. See here. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Aha, interesting. I guess I just assumed everyone would have switched to it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

April fools RFA

Extended content

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

2022 FIFA World Cup

Final (16/17/2); ended 10:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC) - Result was: Happy Easter everyone! Bureaucrat Jules (Bureaucrat Jules) 10:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

2022 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – The great football tournament ^{[April Fools!]} Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: None at all, I'm a football tournament silly.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: 2015 FIFA corruption case, it was all my own work I promise, and not my Qatari "assistants".

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: None that a few inducements didn't sort out. In the future, my favorite response will be to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la".

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed. Note that while these questions are labeled as optional, you will be pilloried if you deign not to respond.

Optional question from ONUnicorn

4. Are you an abolitionist?

A: Not in the traditional sense. But if you're talking about abolishing human rights, bribery laws, and the vuvuzela, I'm all ears.

Compulsory followup question by CorbieVreccan

4a. If a cabal of Support !votes were to just happen, would said cabal then be supported in painting the field and changing the name of the hosting stadium to "Black Lives Matter Stadium"? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A: Sure, if they're willing to sponsor it, but of course it would be subject to the big boss approval who might prefer the current proposal, the "Russians Wrestling With Bears Stadium".

Optional question from GreenMeansGo

5. Would you rather fight one Jimbo sized ClueBot, or a hundred ClueBot sized Jimbos?

A: To be frank, I'd rather accept an inducement from either (it's what I do best). Why fight when money is the key? Although we might draw the line at a World Cup on Mars.

Compulsory question from WereSpielChequers

6. Which other sports would you like to merge into your competition, for example Elephant Polo would bring elephants into the game

A: Interesting, although it might have to be camels, considering the location. Maybe instead of the penalty shootouts? Should help with Middle Eastern TV rights.

Optional question from Nsk92

7. What are your thoughts about organizing a World Cup in political football? And who do you think might be the first winner?

A: I've got a better idea: how about some political Celebrity Deathmatch (you know what, their late payments are a constant source of stress).

Optional question from Lee Vilenski

8. If given the toolset, will you use them to improve the Qatar Stars League, or just for a political empire?

A: Give the keys to the magic kingdom, I will use it to vanquish your enemies, and spread peace love to the entire inter-webs (just kidding, I might just permanently semi-protects a few FIFA article actually).

Optional question from Tryptofish

9. As an alternative to administrator recall, will you consider allowing penalty kicks? If so, where will you allow us to kick you?

A: Sounds good, I can go with that. But of course you would be actually kicking my "volunteer personal assistants" wearing surgically implanted masks.

Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer is "in England". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So close.

Very important and totally on-topic question from Panini!

10. What is your favorite Paper Mario game?

A: Sorry, the only games I play are corruption, and a little FIFA 21 Ultimate team.

Discussion

Links for 2022 FIFA World Cup: 2022 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit summary usage for 2022 FIFA World Cup can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review the page history before commenting.

Support

Support – Finally, an admin I can bribe. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
LOL Support per Levivich. I often disagree with their posts outside article space, but I have to admit THAT support was funny. — Ched (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support – As an Indian, I am definitely looking for quid pro quo here. This is the only way of us to host the world cup. Coderzombie (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support YES YES YES YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! ShadowBallX (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, FIFA World Cup is very great Hhkohh (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support, only if Lebanon automatically qualifies. Otherwise strong oppose. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support I miss live sports. StarM 18:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support per snowball clause : This candidate has no chance of failing. 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support – we're yet to have a nation beginning with Q at the World Cup before, so overlooking the corruption, human rights abuses and lack of any actual stadiums, this is something I can get behind. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - If you can administer the 2022 FIFA World Cup, you can certainly become an Administrator on Wikipedia. Total support. SethWhales^talk 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - Qatar is the greatest country in the world, all other countries run by little girls.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support this guy shud be the admin.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support we need more corruption. MainPeanut (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Strong support per Levivich. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - Finally an admin from the real Royal family.--Darwinek (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Support per #2. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Fine enough, but Sepp would be Blatter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTCRYSTAL, until it happens, we can't gaurantee it happened :P Until we observe it, it could only be considered Schrodinger's admin. AdmiralEek (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose due to FIFA's corruption —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel this is too early. We shouldn't assign adminship to world cups until they have sufficient experience, e.g. have actually taken place. /Julle (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, per Google's recent announcement that they will skip this April Fool's again. We've had enough false information to last a lifetime. Ifnord (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose choosing Qatar as a location doesn't seem indicative of having a good judgment. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per three reasons. 1. Candidate has not answered any questions. 2. This whole world cup is a sham due to corruption and human rights violations. 3. Not in correct place. April Fools day RFA's have a special page. Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose and I agree with the thought of the opponents Dr Salvus 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose the candidate does have an impressive track record in building white elephants, it's true. However, what I expect from such a candidate before I support is ~~an envelope full of cash~~, at least 1,387 featured articles, 25 years' tenure and a much stronger record of discrimination. The candidate doesn't seem to have even had a go at bumping off some dissidents in a foreign country yet, so it's a no from me. Valenciano (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the answer to the first question. It's called soccer! Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There's been rather a lot of controversy surrounding this candidate, but little evidence of actual achievement in anything. Maybe come back next year and I'll be able to evaluate better. P-K3 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as too ballsy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose – Unfortunately, I can't support this candidate given their reckless editing habits, as shown by their decision to move their schedule around and compete with the NFL season. Yes, users can be bold, but this is going to lead to unnecessary conflict between American football and rest-of-the-world football. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Come back in another year. Oh yes, candidate needs to demonstrate a thorough compliance with WP:MASK. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
78.26, Is that anything like these masks, or these masks? — Ched (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ched Well, yes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: Qatar gets too many balls sweating —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NOTYET as well. I am also very suspicious about this account. I can't help but think they may be a sockpuppet of Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid. -Big little huge small 65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 22:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Low-quality adminship attempt, poor answers to the questions, plus this user does not appear to exist. It's surprising that this RfA has gotten a non-zero StewardMark as a result. Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Holding off for a co-nomination by User:Vlad P for now. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Waiting for co-nom by User:Willy on Wheels. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan who was the one who had that Baltimore Colts horseshoe who opposed, something about per self evident or something? — Ched (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am drawing a total blank. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was Kmweber or something similar - something about prima facie evidence of power hunger or some such. (had to dig a bit since my memory is often a traitor these days) — Ched (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Supposetral

Supposetral; I can't make up my mind, and I suspect the candidate can't make up it's mind either since it doesn't have a mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

General comments

GOAL GOAL GOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!! AdmiralEek (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Will the decision of this be referred to VAR? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tournament articles

Hi all

Just an enquiry if there's any guidance or examples as to what a football tournament article should look like? I've been wondering about having a look at something like 2017 Africa Cup of Nations, which is little more than a glorified set of tables and lists at the moment. But there seems to be an almost complete lack of such articles at either WP:FA#Soccer or even in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Sports_and_recreation#Football. We have loads of finals and individual matches there, some individual club seasons, and even a few mini-tournaments such as 2017 Emirates Cup but no full-length tournaments. 2018 FIFA World Cup seems vaguely OK, in that there's quite a lot of cited prose, but the lengthy lists of results etc. still make it look difficult to dive in and start reading. Any thoughts on where to look? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World Cup is a featured article. My suggestion would be to follow this. So more or less the same sections, but perhaps more on the tournament, the venues, qualification and a section on the aftermath perhaps, with a look at the next tournament. A few paragraphs on the statistics. The bit I'm unsure about is the list of games. Do we need all of this listed in the main article? I'm not sure. I can see the benefits, but can also see the opposite view. Anyway, hope that's helped. Just my two pennies worth on what I'd do if I was looking to expand such an article. NapHit (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NapHit: very helpful, thank you. — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Players who belong to two teams at the same time

Hello everybody. Is there a consensus on the following topic?
-> In Austria some 1st tier teams have reserve teams in the second tier which aren't officially the second teams of the club, but factually. Examples are RB Salzburg with FC Liefering and LASK with FC Juniors OÖ. Now there are players who are designated as cooperation players and can thus play for both teams at the same time, an exmaple is Patrick Plojer. Players move between the teams week by week as needed or desired.
-> How to deal with this in the info box and introductory paragraph?
I did it this way:

Patrick Plojer (born 26 March 2001) is an Austrian footballer who plays as a forward for LASK and their reserve team Juniors OÖ.

-> What is your opinion on this topic? Kind regards, DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While the wording in the lead sounds good, I have an issue with the use of slashes per MOS:SLASH. I don't really have a good solution for this situation, though. For Juventus F.C. Under-23 players, I just follow what the Juventus website says (if they are listed as a Juventus player, I'll treat them as a Juventus player, if they are a reserve team player, I'll treat them as an U23 player, such as Radu Drăgușin). Also, in Italy, a player can only play at most five games for the seniors before he is effectively "locked out" of playing with the reserves. I don't know if the situation is analogous in Austria. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If a player is mainly with the 2nd team and occasionally with the 1st team, just use 2nd team (and vice versa). Giant Snowman 18:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I did some research. You can find an official document by the Austrian Football Federation here (unfortunately only in German) [6]. It basically says that a cooperation deal can be made between clubs from the 1st and 2nd level in Austria and the respectively player remains eligible for his home club as well as for the cooperation club. The only constraint is that a player can only play for one club on a matchday. The cooperation deals also have to be made within the transfer window and no transfer fees are allowed. Just to choose one club is in my point of view incorrect as a player belongs to both teams at the same time and is capped for both teams in the same season. DrunkenGerman (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably word the opening sentence "is an Austrian footballer who plays as a forward for both LASK and their reserve team Juniors OÖ under the Austrian League cooperation rules" or "...as a cooperation player" or whatever it's called, with a reference that explcitly verifies that status. With a clear statement of what's going on, placed right right next to the infobox, MOS:SLASH isn't really an issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I would still opt to just show one club in situations where the player is clearly just "a reserve player who has played a couple of games for the seniors" (as indicated by the club website, for example, by having the player in just one of the two squad sections). For Austria, where evidently players can just switch from one club to another without any limit, I don't really have much of an opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In Austria the deal is that you have e.g. at LASK twelve players that have such a status, see de:FC_Juniors_OÖ#Aktueller_Kader. So such a cooperation deal is not really something exceptional, but more the rule for any young players who also should gain extra match experience at the reserve team. The degree on how much a player is then used in 1st and 2nd team is very different. DrunkenGerman (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FootballCritic.com

Is this site reliable? It's being added by @FIB Sébastien: to numerous BLPs to verify player heights... Giant Snowman 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You can ask at WP:RSN --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of RSN thanks - but why would the editors there know more about the site than the Football WP? Giant Snowman 19:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think people have different niches. For examples I know about football, but neccesarily how to evaluate and judge sources as reliable :) Always worth trying both in my opinion. --SuperJew (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Squad flags

Every squad article has the flag icons and mostly there's the hatnote Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. This, of course, is completely unreferenced. Can someone provide a reference (or more than one) to verify these statements? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

All detailed at FIFA eligibility rules. Giant Snowman 14:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that statement needs inline citation wherever it's used. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you should know that already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do. But all the info and references are in that page, if you read it. Also the hatnote you have an issue with has been in place for years. Giant Snowman 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking here for a citation which works for the statement. It doesn't matter how long something has been in place. If it's not verifiable, it needs to be fixed. You should know that already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We could add the FIFA Statutes PDF (pages 74 to 76) as a source inside {{Football squad start}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a start. Then, where in each squad article is each player's "FIFA eligibility rules"-based nationality referenced? (note: Wikipedia is not RS). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, this is such a non-issue. The squad list itself should be referenced, and the reference lists nationality, number etc. You should know that already. Giant Snowman 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. At WP:FA there has been a question raised over (a) the statement and (b) where player's nationalities (per FIFA) are referenced. Do you have the answer or are you going to waste my time for a fourth time? I'll take Brighton as a random example, where are the nationalities please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Or Rotherham? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Or Leeds? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

All detailed on the individual player profiles. You should know that already. Giant Snowman 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so not verified by the squad page at all then? So not actually verified per WP:V. Are you still an admin? Jesus. So we have an unreferenced note and unreferenced nationalities but according to you (an admin??) this is "such a non-issue"? Honestly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it is a non-issue. Linking to the player list on the club website (or similar), something we have done for years and years and years with no issues, is a far more sensible alternative to linking to 40 (or more!) individual player profiles. Can you verify the player nationalities from the link provided? Yes, absolutely. Stop being so pedantic (and crabby). Giant Snowman 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) So your proposal is to add 20-30+ individual sources, one for each player? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My proposal is that WP:V, a policy, is met. It would be much more preferable to add a reference for each player, of course. I suppose laziness prevents that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There should at least be a note within the reference in my opinion, stating something like: "Nationalities accessed via individual player profiles." LTFC 95 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sensible. Giant Snowman 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This is fundamental to Wikipedia's policies. An admin claiming it to be a non-issue is seriously worrying. I'll have to keep an eye on that. So we need a footnote to be added to the hatnote (which has been there for years - so what??) and we need a footnote to be added to the squad listings to say where the nationalities are listed (not on the squad page at all). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

All that needs to happen is a note added to the reference as per LTFC 95's suggestion. That fixes any issue. Birmingham City F.C. is a GA and uses the squad list, with some individual loan players individual referenced. Fine. PS Take your veiled threats and jog on. If you have an issue with my approach here then ANI is thataway... Giant Snowman 14:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You should look closer to home. Knowledge of policy is a fundamental requirement of an admin. Sorry you failed there. Just need to be careful what you say to people other people who might take it at face value. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no WP:V failure here. "All content must be verifiable". This content is verifiable, and indeed verified, by the squad list reference widely used. So, like I said, a non-issue. Giant Snowman 14:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. That's like saying "it's verifiable using Google". As you know. Perhaps you aren't interested in featured content but your interpretation of WP:V is very odd indeed, that's why you need to watch what you're saying to others who may take it as gospel because you're an admin. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

More nonsense from you, shame. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just be more careful when you try explaining policy to people who may believe what you say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It baffles me that to this point no one has suggested using Soccerway or similar which lists most if not all the players for professional teams and their nationalities. Take Brighton as an example, would it not be simple to use that as the source? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway isn't super reliable regarding nationalities for all players in all leagues. Sometimes they list the person's place of birth as their nationality, even though they played internationally for their parents' country (for example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it wouldn't necessarily work for all teams, especially those outwith the top leagues but that doesn't mean you couldn't use it and add supplementary sources for the one or two players in a squad that might be incorrect. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the principle issue is laziness, people can't be bothered to source each player individually. Instead others "rely" on Wikpiedia or general squad pages which don't list the nationalities, or just breeze over it as something that's been around for years so it can't be a problem. Of course, it is a problem of verifiability and indeed the only real solution is the inclusion of the specific player page from their current club which can then be archived and re-used should those players move on. But it's all too much bother I suppose, and the policy is just to be ignored... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the issue here isn't what can we get away with, it's more what is best practice. If we are talking about a list of players, the link to the club page with all of the players is great for suggesting who is in that team. It doesn't cover how tall they are, what nationality they are, or if they prefer bananas to oranges. We should treat every article (or at least our policies on these sorts of things) as if they will some day be an FA. If we don't have a source for the nationality of each player in this way, why do we even mention it on the club page? Playing nationalities have little to do with clubs, and nationalities within national teams is irrelevant for the opposite reason (they are already on that page). Of course the opening to this topic was more on sourcing the statement about FIFA eligibility, rather than what players are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So are we saying that the general presence of nationality info at external player sources (e.g. Soccerway) confers notability on stating nationality for our player articles, but given that nationality can be emotive we go with what the club site says (as that logically incorporates what the player wants)? Eldumpo (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we're not. We're saying we use reliable sources to verify a player's nationality (and everything else). Giant Snowman 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But we never do, especially in squad or match articles. The flags/nationalities are practically never verifiable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean "practically never verified", as opposed to "verifiable". The nationalities clearly are verifiable. Giant Snowman 21:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean what I wrote. The information in squad and match articles practically never provides verifiable reliable sources because people are too lazy. Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Verifiable means that a source potentially exists, verified means that the source exists and is also on Wikipedia; in this case, the information is verifiable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant. So moving on from the semantic inanity and cutting to the chase, the material in the squad and match articles has no reliable sources which can be used to verify the claims about nationality (or the "FIFA nationality"). Relying on top-level squad links or much worse, Wikipedia articles, is laziness and is inadequate. But then perhaps most people here aren't working on high quality material. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

the material in the squad and match articles has no reliable sources. This doesn't mean that reliable sources don't exist: they do. They just aren't in the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the crucial difference that TRM can't seem to grasp... Giant Snowman 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I said "moving on from the semantic inanity", perhaps you missed that. As I noted, the problem here is that I approach articles here with an expectation that verifiable reliable sources will be used in them, not just assumed to exist somewhere in the universe. I fell foul of assuming that others here wanted to improve the quality of articles and instead were content argue against the inclusion of verifiable reliable sources wherever possible. What a funny little project this is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TRM - deary you indeed, because you clearly do not understand WP:V, which says that "all content must be verifiable" (WP:BURDEN; my emphasis), which means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified". There is no such thing at WP:V as "all content must be verified" (my emphasis again). Can we verify the nationality of the players in squad lists? Yes - and in 99% of cases we do, and turn 'verifiable' into 'verified' through the use of reliable sources. Please tell me you understand the difference, and also how it applies here... (edit conflict with Nehme, who is absolutely correct here btw). Giant Snowman 21:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Lazy stuff "admin". "99% of cases" is utterly fake. But carry on, you're on a roll. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The answers to this are already given above. We can adjust the template to include a link to the official FIFA statutes, if anyone is in doubt as to what this 'nationality' means. And we can also include a disclaimer stating 'please refer to player articles for further information on individual circumstances.' There should be no player article that doesn't fully verify their nationality, either by showing unambiguous birthplace or by explaining the nuances which contradict that inference. WP:V doesn't state that every single thing in every single article has to be referenced individually as long as there is an internal link to somewhere where that information would obviously be found. In this case, anyone querying a player's nationality can make one click to go to their profile where a reference for that info should be - and if it isn't, that's primarily an issue for the BLP article rather than the club/season article replicating it alongside others. And if the level of pedantry being applied here is so high that this isn't sufficient, Soccerway has a squad list page including each player's nationality for every team in a professional league around the world AFAIK. Certainly it would cover most teams and most leagues. So I'd suggest if someone wants to add that link as proof, that would be a simple way to do it. Crowsus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't rely on other Wikipedia articles for sourcing. Sourcing for match or squad articles should be standalone and within the scope of the match or squad article. Players should be individually sourced. We don't have lists of awards and tell readers to go to the main award website and go look for the answers, that's just lazy. Which is what all this is about really. Laziness. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't suppose somebody could point to the policy which they're saying allows the text on one article to be cited on another?

I've been looking, y'see, and I see very little that says that, or implies it. Either the information needs to be sourced per WP:V, in which case it needs to be sourced on each article. Or, it does not need to be sourced because it is not challenged, or likely to be challenged, in which case it doesn't need to be sourced on any article.

The context here is WP:FAC. The featured article criteria say that citations should be added where appropriate, and when you follow that link there is a list of instances where things do not need to be cited. One of them is where it is cited elsewhere in the article - but there is no exception for information cited elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Do we expect FAC reviewers to inspect all the player articles to check that they are properly sourced before they allow the match or squad articles to get featured status? Given that those player articles may be stubs or of poor quality? What if the information is corrected or altered in the player article and isn't updated in the featured article? I think this overcomplicates things. The featured article candidate should pass or fail on its own merits. And if it's relying on player articles for important citations, then it seems to me that it cannot pass on its own merits. Kahastok talk 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As I realised earlier, those playing around here aren't interested in high quality articles so I was wasting my time. Everything you say is 100% spot on though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So which FAC with an unsourced player nationality squad list is being referred to here then? Crowsus (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It stemmed from the 2019 FA Cup Final where flags were insisted upon (despite being pointless and purely decorative and contrary to MOS). The "nationality" turns out to be the "FIFA nationality" which isn't referenced anywhere. And while 11v11 has the same flags as the 2019 article, the point extends to all match and squad articles across all of Wikipedia. Player's "nationality" (a) needs to be explained that it's the "FIFA" nationality (and referenced) and (b) needs itself to be referenced. This started as a FAC conversation but it's clear the project isn't interested in properly referencing player articles nor explaining how/why "FIFA nationality" is used. Just mad keen to keep tiny decorative (and often meaningless to most) flag graphics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In all the football articles I've worked on, I always assumed the nationalities given were those of the player's football country, which is not necessarily their birth or citizenship nationality. I think we should always strive for certainty and consistency but it is difficult if the FIFA nationality has no documented base for reference. I have to say I don't like flag graphics and would rather just see the country (preferably as an abbreviation like ENG or SCO) in brackets after the player's name. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those - this is what we always do sort of things. Even if there was no flags, we should have to cite which countries we are listing, which as pointed out we don't have one that encompasses all players, so you need an individual ref per player. Why can't we just remove the flags as we aren't making critical commentary on them? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that certain project users think just flags are informative. Which of course they are not. They are cute graphics which are usually unreferenced, go with an unreferenced "FIFA nationality" note sometimes, and are easily confused, playing no part in the article themselves other than from a trivia perspective. But it's "what's been done for years" so it'll carry on that way through apathy and sloth. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The flags are informative - many leagues have a limit on foreign players and it is notable - media often talk about the domestic/national build of squads. --SuperJew (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, the flags are unexplained and unsourced and often confusing. In no sense are they required in these match articles, especially when there is literally no discussion of limits or domestic/national build-up in the articles. And most people can't tell the difference between a French flag or a Dutch flag. The use of flag icons is purely decorative which goes against MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment that most people can't tell the difference between a French flag or a Dutch flag is the reason the template {{Football squad player}} was changed to display a tricode and relevant link next to the flag. As some users have mentioned already, it feels that you have come to vent and remove/destroy rather than to point out a real problem and to help find a solution. If nationalities were indeed not an important part of football, than it wouldn't be included and mentioned in so many sources about the subject. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That template is not used in match listings is it? And I can add you to list of people making personal attacks. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we try to keep a more civil tone towards each other, it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia after all? I am quite frankly appalled by seeing multiple experienced editors not being able to discuss the matter in a normal tone. This goes both for TRM—your tone throughout this thread doesn't really encourage solving this issue (and from my perspective it seems you mainly went here to vent anger rather than to solve anything)—, but also for some of the answers to TRM—especially from GS who is an admin and should know better. Shame on you all. This is not what I had in mind when I started this WikiProject 16 years ago.

From my understanding, there are two issues that have been raised in some way.

Do squad lists etc. really need to contain the FIFA nationality? And is it compliant with MOS:FLAG? I do see the potential problem, but I also agree with Peejay's argument in the FAC that these nationalities play a quite an important role in club football. Most sites or apps that include squad lists do include the nationality as a pretty prominent part (just one example being my livescore app that shows only player name, player picture, and nationality in their club squad lists).
If nationalities are shown in some way (no matter with flags or text), how are those nationalities sourced? I don't really find this to be a problem for most content, as per my comment above, it should be quite easy to find referencing to support those nationalities (without having to source each player one by one). I would support a standardised way of adding those references to squad lists.

– Elisson • T • C • 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The argument that "these nationalities play a quite an important role in club football" is a non-starter - where in the FA Cup final article are the nationalities of the players involved in any way "important"? Where are they discussed? By all means have a "squad analysis" section in each club article, but that's not a serious reason for the inclusion of flag icons in a match article. And no, I wasn't at all upset until my concerns were dismissed out of hand by a supposed admin. That was the first of many problems. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've never stated the nationalities were specifically important to the specific FAC article — but I do think that nationalities play an important part in general within squad lists. Just like the playing positions are an important part in general for squad lists. But that doesn't mean I believe that an article on a specific match or a club needs to have an analysis section of playing positions – it's just one of those facts that I think people may expect out of these types of articles. Just like attendance stats or the referee lists are extremely unlikely to be important enough in a match article to warrant any analysis, but extremely likely to be stats and facts that people may go to Wikipedia to find. – Elisson • T • C • 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So there you have it. If the nationality of players is discussed (e.g. in their bio) then fine. If it is reliably sourced. If a squad listing is accompanied by a critical commentary on the make-up of the squad in terms of multiple nationalities, again fine with the nationalities if they are reliably sourced. In no case can I hear any reason we would go for tiny little icon graphics only with no explanation as to the meaning of the little icon graphics or any reference for them. Or did I miss the case in favour of that beyond "it's just how we've done it"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you read my full comment, because your "So there you have it" comment seems to imply you didn't, based on you again putting words in my mouth. Do you believe that every fact within every article on Wikipedia needs to have associated critical commentary or analysis? That's what I get from what you're writing, but I may misinterpret you, so I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I hope I'm wrong because by setting that standard, we should remove a lot of content that I find strong reasons to include without associated commentary. It would be interesting to hear your key issue with what we're discussing. Is it that the "it's just how we've done it" squad lists includes flags, or is it that it includes the fact on FIFA nationality (in any form), or is it that such a fact does not have associated commentary, or is it that it is difficult to find sources for such facts? – Elisson • T • C • 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already listed the key issues. We use flags badly and for no good reason. Nationalities in match and squad articles are unreferenced. There's no referencing for "FIFA nationality". This isn't just a FAC issue, it's a general issue with referencing across most of this project's articles. Being told by a so-called admin that this is a "non-problem" is really worrying and I imagine completely off-putting to most editors who would feel bullied away by such a flippant remark. I'm not saying we need to "remove content", I'm saying we need to reference existing content, I'm saying I'd like someone/anyone to explain why the use of bare flag icons is even reasonable let alone suitable for an encyclopedia. It's a mess really and one that has been allowed to fester for far too long with a general "it's how we've always done it, the facts are out there somewhere so stop going on about it" approach. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I know it's been a while but have you forgotten what the back pages of football programmes look like? All the ones I remember had a player list, with little flags... Giant Snowman 16:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with how Wikipedia deals with statements of fact and the provision of reliable sources. Team listings these days issued by most clubs have no mention whatsoever of nationality because, surprise surprise, it's completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Because contrary to the above, in my experience clubs include flags/details of nationality in programmes (just like they do on their websites. the information is verifiable, easily verified, and relevant/useful. Giant Snowman 16:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's called trivia. If it's not relevant encyclopedically to an event then it's trivial. And sure, programmes have adverts too. And other fluff. This isn't a football programme, it's an encyclopedia. Team listings do not feature nationalities because they are irrelevant to Spurs v Chelsea or Rochdale v Ipswich or Rangers v Celtic. They're not representing their countries, there's not even usually any mention of nationality in the prose. And the use of unreferenced unexplained flags is completely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's patently not trivia though. It's something that is covered by all reliable sources, and as others have said above a player's nationality impacts whether or not they can sign for a club... Giant Snowman 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where in, for example, match reports in The Guardian or the BBC showing flags for nationalities? It's trivial. Their nationalities are not even mentioned in passing. It's irrelevant. And made much worse by the exclusive use of tiny unexplained and unreferenced graphics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And whether or not they can sign for a club what does that have to do with their nationality in a match report? I would assume that they have already signed for a club if they appear in the list of team members for a given match, right? There may be a place in club articles for a squad analysis section where you can actually cover this kind of thing encyclopedically and critically, but it's of precisely zero relevance in match reports. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the FAC discussion we have multiple editors that believe flags/nationalities are relevant to include, and I've at least given two good reasons for inclusion (i.e. that many sources include nationality which is an indication of its importance, and that I believe that the nationalities are what a visitor to a page may expect to find). You seem to think it is just trivia, but that doesn't mean that you're automatically correct. This argument also generalises to a lot of other facts we include, as mentioned, e.g. attendance and referees. What's your view on those facts, are they also included for no good reason? – Elisson • T • C • 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Attendance and referee are directly relevant to a football match. Nationality of a player (which is not even discussed, even in passing in the article) is not relevant to domestic football at all. And moreover, attendance and referee are referenced. Nationalities of players (or should I say, tiny little flag graphics with no explanation) are not referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are attendance and referee directly relevant facts about a football match more than the nationalities on the pitch? Do they generally receive significant coverage that can support critical commentary or analysis? – Elisson • T • C • 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You honestly think the referee is not more important than the nationality? Seriously? The actions of the referee directly impact the outcome of the game and are often discussed, sometimes in great detail, in plenty of match reports. The fact that Jimmy Ryan might be Irish is completely irrelevant to a match between Rochdale and Ipswich. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I'll say it this last time, and let it pass. I asked you a question, I didn't state any opinion. But you seem not to be able to hold a discussion in a civil tone without resorting to personal attacks. Thank you for the answer, now I know your opinion (at least regarding the referee, you didn't comment on attendance figures). But I agree that the referee and attendance figures are relevant to include in our match reports. I also hold the opinion that the nationalities are relevant to include, per my previous arguments. Which you just dismiss without any sensible argument more than "they're not relevant". – Elisson • T • C • 17:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No-one has said why they are relevant to a match report. No-one. Just "interesting" or "RS all show them" (which they patently do not). And they're not referenced or explained. And there's not a shred of personal attack in there, you should know what one of those is, plenty of them here aimed at me. Nationalities of players in a domestic match is of no relevance, but if one absolutely insists they are there, explain the flags and reference the flags. Basics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the multiple leagues where the number of foreign players in a match day squad is restricted? OK. Giant Snowman 18:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So trying to ridicule other editors (You honestly think the referee is not more important than the nationality? Seriously?) is not a personal attack? You throw around the same accusations towards other editors based on similar statements by them that you just made towards me. As you seem to have no interest in reaching any kind of consensus for guidelines or solutions to the problem at hand, and only seem interested in pushing your own personal views as the single solution, I may just as well give up on this discussion. I was hoping for something else, something constructive. But this just wastes my time. I appreciate your efforts in bringing content up to standards, but I don't appreciate your way of dealing with anyone that disagrees with you. – Elisson • T • C • 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice last throwaway PA in the edit summary. And no, that wasn't any attempt to "ridicule", it was a genuine question because it seems that some people's "norms" here are very different. But I see you're off now, so bye. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johan Elisson: you're absolutely right about CIV, and I shouldn't have reacted like that to TRM's rudeness. Nice to see TRM ignore your comments though! Giant Snowman 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, flags are just about relevant enough to include, but there seems to be little consistency between sources on what nation to display, when more than one is applicable. Taking Crawley Town F.C. as an example, I just changed the nationalities to those given at footballsquads.co.uk for consistency, but other sources seem to give various other things depending on the player. Soccerway, for example, gives Emmanuel Adebowale's nationality as English (as opposed to Nigerian on footballsquads.co.uk), as does WorldFootball.net, though that also gives David Sesay's nationality as Kenyan, and Davide Rodari's as Italian. Crawley Town's website describes Sesay as Kenyan, Rodari as English (even though he was born in Switzerland and grew up in Italy - I assume it sets English as default and the website admin forgot to change it, or something like that), Adebowale as English and doesn't even give a nationality for players like Rafiq Khaleel. So most sources seem to just be whomever put together the website making a wild stab in the dark as to what a player's nationality might be. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The use of flags is one problem. The sources for each player's "nationality" (FIFA, not actual, although sometimes actual, perhaps...) are invariably missing from club and match articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FIFA nationality is the "actual" nationality. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. What, for example, if someone is dual nationality? Which FIFA nationality is reflected? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You said "FIFA, not actual", implying that they are different. One cannot hold a FIFA nationality if they don't have that country's nationality. It would be nice if you tried not making it sound as if there were more problems than there are ("although sometimes actual, perhaps...") Which nationality to display is not subject to dispute. It's telling that the premise of this discussion was the fact that the hatnote is unreferenced yet, despite having found a solution 30 minutes later, you shifted the discussion to something else just for the fun of venting off and being passive-aggressive. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're assuming our readers understand FIFA nationalities. If a dual-national player opts to play for one of those countries, it isn't a definition of his nationality by any mans at all. That is simply false. This issue is littered with problems and lack of reliable sources and referenced notes, along with a "ICANTHEARYOU" approach is at the root of it all. I'm waiting for an explanation as to why unreferenced flag icons are considered encyclopedic when every other part of the encyclopedia meets a bare minimum set of standards for explanation and referencing. By all means keep insulting me if it makes you feel like a stronger person. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please quote my "insult" towards you. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

you shifted the discussion to something else just for the fun of venting off and being passive-aggressive that's a personal attack. Noted. Cheers. But let's not let that get in the way of your lack of answer here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A personal attack is a serious issue. If you feel that I, and multiple editors here, are personally attacking you, I would suggest you raise the issue at WP:ANI. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I know it's serious. I'll deal with it in my own time, I don't need your advice on that thanks, the issues are already noted. But you missed answering the point. FIFA nationality is not actual nationality so you're making a false assertion there, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: You said I think you're assuming our readers understand FIFA nationalities. The average reader who is interested in soccer will know and understand FIFA nationalities at least to a basic level, with other readers knowing less or more in a bell curve (more or less). For the readers who know less and/or want to learn more the hat-note links to FIFA eligibility rules. Just like any other term or subject within the article. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No that’s not true. I didn’t know and that’s why I asked for relevant references to be added to the note. I’ve watched football for all my life so don’t try telling me I’m not at least an average reader. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support keeping the flags on articles. (the reasons have all been given above). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Where are they referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary

So for match articles, the current consensus of this project appears to be:

Flag icons are desired.
Detail of what the flags mean (country code etc) is not desired.
Referenced explanations as to the real meaning of the flags (FIFA nationality) is not desired.
References for each of the FIFA nationalities is not desired.

Is that it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you've got it completely wrong, as you have with most of this car crash of a discussion tbh. To summarise my take on the long standing status quo on the matter - flags are useful, being a handy shortcut to explain/display nationality, and their inclusion in squad lists also reflects usage outside of Wikipedia; but all squad lists should be referenced, including nationality of players. Giant Snowman 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. What I asked above is where are the player nationalities referenced in the articles, you told me to go look at some squad sub-pages or something. That's not the kind of referencing we need for quality articles. So the consensus appears to be that flags need no explanation, and no inline references. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are yet again mistaken. Giant Snowman 19:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a complete rampage, The Rambling Man, you are rambling on and on and on. And for what? I see nothing to change the status-quo. We have a system that works fine, most of the time a player nationality is cited in an article. Govvy (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been asked to demonstrate in a match article (a) the nationality of a player and (b) the use of the FIFA nationality applies note. Most, if not all articles on matches here do not provide inline citations for the player nationality or the FIFA note. The flags used are also without explanation (e.g. country code) too. I'm just establishing now that the project is working under the misguided assumption that references for such match articles can be relied upon in player articles, i.e. that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Now I have that, it's fine, I'll just make sure I work outside the guidelines provided by this project. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Honest question, what do you propose as the alternative to the status quo? Do you want a reference for the FIFA nationality of every player at every club? Tons of articles (season summaries, competition summaries, international competitions, prizes, etc) note the FIFA nationalities of players (as they should, FIFA eligibilty is of huge importance in football because of the international/continental tournaments like the World Cup/UEFA Euros/etc). Would we need to put these references on all of these pages? And would doing so be of any value to anyone, even if they were implemented? I understand the value of verifiability, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of work for little payoff. Why don't we add references to confirm the names of the players as well? Or references to prove their positions while we're at it?--Ortizesp (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for high quality articles we should be referencing claims in the article in question. Player names are frequently referenced in their own bio articles and of course team lineups are referenced within match articles so that's just standard procedure. And yes, again, references should be used for their positions in any given match too. This can often be found these days in BBC match reports which list the formation and the line-up which is being used to accomplish that formation. So yeah, everything you've said we should reference, we already do, mostly in the right places, but when it comes to match articles we don't bother referencing (or explaining) the flag icons because apparently the consensus is that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Hence to get anywhere at FAC (for example), the status quo at this project should be summarily ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Players nationalities/FIFA Nationalities are almost always referenced in their own bio articles, same as their names and positions. And if they aren't, then we can agree they should be. I don't think the flags have to be referenced in every single article, unless their names and positions also are referenced in the same way.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't worked on quality articles, FACs etc. You cannot rely on other Wikipedia articles for referencing. Names and positions of players are cited in reliable sources and those are used in match articles. The nationalities/flags are not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For most clubs, you can generally find the flags on their squad lists on their own websites (eg, Arsenal site here) or database websites (such as Soccerway Premier League). These are usually referenced under "First Team Squad" sections of major clubs. Is that not good satisfactory?--Ortizesp (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we had that conversation earlier. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is bordering on disruptive already. Many users have satisfactorily answered your queries, but you just keep choosing to ignore them. (for example: TRM: the flags are not referenced! Editor: Here's a reference. TRM: Nah that's not good / I've already replied to that) --SuperJew (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the use of a general squad listing at a team page is not the same as individual listings at a match page. Not to worry, I have what I need, and that is to not follow the guidance or advice of most people here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I will say this, I now agree that we probably don't need the flags everywhere on Wikipedia. If we keep them at just the squad lists on club pages (making sure they are referenced) it should satisfy all parties. As User:Nehme1499 previous, we should "add the FIFA Statutes PDF (pages 74 to 76) as a source inside {{Football squad start}}". And then make sure the references (squad list/ or database, Soccerway is generally reliable for this) show the flags of players and we should be good to go. I don't think adding a flag for each player is a satisfactory solution, but maybe a reference if the player isn't mentioned or contradicts the source should be required. Again, this is probably just for good articles, and I don't expect this to be forced on the thousands of clubs around the world, many of which don't and won't have enough quality references for this to work. EDIT: And if we do want to keep the flags on other pages, then sure, then the flags should be referenced.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Is a manager also a coach

See Talk:Joe Smith (coach)#Requested move 4 April 2021 and any help there appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

International managers stats

So I just updated the manager section of the Aussie Matildas. Whomever originally added this section included columns for matches, wins, draws, losses, and winning %. Now for the most recent manager who has only played one game, it was easy to update, but I'm not up to going through history pages to start counting stats. Does anyone have a good source for international manager stats? Soccerbase seems great for managers, but unless I'm missing something it's only for domestic league matches. --SuperJew (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, the period columns should be replaced by two columns: from and to, which would include the start and end date (and not just year), with the respective source. That way, assuming that the various Australia women's national soccer team results pages are correct, you can just count the matches from that list. For women's football, it's not easy to find a unique source with an explicit record for each manager, as there isn't any database with a full list of women's NT games (other than maybe the respective countries' federation websites). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: That's a good idea. I was going by the format someone already added to the page. Though it might be a bit problem for some of the less recent managers. Just for general knowledge, do you have suggestions for sources for men's football managers? --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: If you're lucky, you can find something on RSSSF (e.g. Italy). But yeah, finding the correct manager stats has always been a bit of a problem in general. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - for Australians at least, see p 133 of this guide: link Macosal (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic find! Thanks Macosal :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

RC Strasbourg Alsace

Hello. I would like to bring up that there are several clubs that go under the name of "Strasbourg" - RC Strasbourg Alsace, AS Strasbourg, and ASPV Strasbourg. For the latter two, both teams on articles are usually distinguished clearly as AS Strasbourg and ASPV Strasbourg. The issue is with RC Strasbourg Alsace. Most articles just say "Strasbourg". Yes, it is the most famous club of Strasbourg, but is it not perhaps a good idea to call it RC Strasbourg in infoboxes? This can be seen on Arsene Wenger, where he plays for "ASPV Strasbourg" and then "Strasbourg", but maybe we should change the second Strasbourg to RC Strasbourg. Let me know what you think. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As an Englishman, I have always known 'RC Strasbourg Alsace' as just 'Strasbourg', and would assume that 'Strasbourg' refers to that team. Giant Snowman 22:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

ligue1.com uses "Strasbourg": https://www.ligue1.com Seems fine to me. The other two are smaller clubs. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Strasbourg or RC Strasbourg is acceptable to me in the infobox and RC Strasbourg certainly wouldn't make it any less clear to me. Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just 'Strasbourg' is perfectly clear. We don't have to call Liverpool 'Liverpool F.C.' in every infobox due to the existence of City of Liverpool F.C. and A.F.C. Liverpool — one club is clearly more well-known and notable than the others, and its common name is that of the city. Domeditrix (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added hatnotes and also expanded ASPVS as well. I thinkt here is no harm done if it is put down as RC Strasbourg if the player playes or managed more than one of the city teams, as long as it redirects correcty it should not be a problem, however I would say adding two letters shoudl not be difficult, if we can be more clear why not be. Same issue can be found with the Bastias (CA Bastia, ÉF Bastia, A.C. Bastia 1924, SC Bastia), América Football Clubs, Ferroviários, Botafogos, Fluminenses, Ajaxes, Flamengos and many, many others.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say just Strasbourg is fine, but RC Strasbourg is also fine. I would say though that if two Strasbourg teams are in the same infobox, such as on Wenger's page it may be best to write RC Strasbourg to add a bit more clarity, rather than to leave RC as just Strasbourg as it might look weird and confusing to some, particularly those who are less familiar with French football to see an ASPV Strasbourg followed by just Strasbourg. RedPatch (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RedPatch. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should just put "Bastia" and "Strasbourg" for the main clubs, but when more than one of those city clubs is in the infobox, we should expand the "SC" and "RC". Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Entente BFN

From 1966 to 1978, RCP Fontainebleau was called Entente Bagneaux-Fontainebleau-Nemours. For players who played for the club in that time period, should we refer to the team as "Entente BFN" or "Fontainebleau"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How was the club commonly referred to back then? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. FootballDatabase.eu calls it Entente BFN, but on Jean-Pierre Adams, which has several famous reliable sources, they call it Fontainebleau. Someone would have to do more research on that. I'm really not sure. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would assume French sources to know how to call the club better than footballdatabase, right? Ideally, you would need to find sources from the 70s. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Find yearbooks or similar publications from that period that cover French football. Well-sorted libraries should have them I'd guess (at least they do in Sweden, for the Swedish football yearbooks). – Elisson • T • C • 17:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Total statistics

Hello. on Sylvain Léandri, what would I do with this: basically, I know the total appearances is going to have a + sign because full statistcs for AC Ajaccio are unknown. There is only one known season of statistics out of 5 for his time at AC Ajaccio. I know that means I leave the club 4 appearances blank. But in the total number, should I include those 27 appearances and 1 goal? It might look a bit weird because these will be "hidden" in the infobox but show up in the total number. Should I put it in the total or not? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As you can see for what I did right now, I included the "hidden" AC Ajaccio statistics in the total. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where are the stats for the one Ajaccio season? In the three sources I don't see any stats for Ajaccio. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just editing it. See FootballDatabase.eu. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For what I can tell, we only know 8 out of 15 seasons (about half). I wouldn't add the total caps and goals, as 101+/2+ could easily be 200+ games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, maybe on this case. But what about other cases where not enough seasons are known for one club but enough are known for the player's entire career? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of Thierry Morin, where we know 11 out of 15 seasons but only 1 out of 3 for Red Star. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would put, for example, 100+ caps in the total (includig his 1 season at Red Star) and leave the stats at Red Star empty. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but what do you mean by 100+ caps in the total? He has way more than 100+ confirmed league caps. Do you mean 175+ caps? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the profile when I said "100+". Yeah, if it's 175+ then put that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. in European football

Does it really need a separate article? I was thinking it could be squeezed back down and placed back in Portsmouth F.C. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

No way a single season playing in Europe warrants a separate article. Valenciano (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Portsmouth F.C. article is already almost twice as long as suggested, this might be a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Portsmouth F.C. seems like it's way too overdetailed. As a comparison, the Portsmouth F.C. article has 90k of characters, compared to just 28k in the FA Norwich City F.C.. If the Portsmouth F.C. article was cut down on the detail, then a split wouldn't be necessary, and the European content could be merged back in. And I don't believe Portsmouth F.C. in European football meets WP:GNG, as they played in Europe once, so no need for a dedicated article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The European article as it stands is horribly under-sourced, but with cleanup, you could probably get it past GNG pretty easily. However, I don't mind creating a rule that you must have two European appearances to qualify for a stand-alone article. The Portsmouth F.C. article desperately needs cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 13:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The history section of Portsmouth F.C. is far too detailed and has a recentism problem. Looking at the last sub-section, a lot of that content would fit into the relevant season article, but does not belong in the club article. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Could just expand the European section in 2008–09 Portsmouth F.C. season. As it is, there is no need for each match squad, if that and the results are removed you're left with the 3 lines in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have struggled in the past with the Portsmouth articles before, (with an IP which added everything back!) I was looking at the European article to see if I could improve it earlier, thinking, it feels silly to have an article for what I thought could be imbedded in another page. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My word that article sucks. The length would be fixed just by shortening the history, as there is a standalone article. The nickname and club colours are crufty... and having musical notes for the songs is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Do what I have done with Bradford City A.F.C. in European football, another club with one season of continental heritage... Giant Snowman 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's totally the way to handle this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW They also played in Europe in the Anglo-Italian Cup which forms a part of several clubs’ articles on their European ventures.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a redirect to Portsmouth F.C.#Portsmouth in Europe, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My two main comment on the Portsmouth article at a quick glance:

The level of detail about away kits is utterly insane
Why is the list of managers not a separate article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and also, why is the explanation of the Pompey nickname necessary in that article when it doesn't specifically refer to the football club any more than to the town as a whole? The history section is also far too long. – Pee Jay 15:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

List of association footballers who died during their careers

The page List of association footballers who died during their careers has grown considerably long, and will continue to grow as it is inevitable that more players will die during their careers in future. While editing it, I noticed that the page lags quite often, and takes a long time to save. Would it be worth splitting it into decade-ly chunks, i.e. List of association footballers who died during their careers (2010–2019) and then perhaps one page for deaths prior to 1940, as this is a section that will not likely be expanded and is already relatively small? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Two things: one, is it necessary to include non-notable players? If so, what is the cutoff? Is a Terza Categoria player ok? And two, I think two articles may be enough (pre-2000 and post-2000), if we decided to keep non-notable players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: As far as I've seen, the page contains all footballers who have died, notable or not - so long as there is a news article that can be cited. I personally think it makes sense to include supposedly non-notable footballers, to a limit, the page isn't titled "List of notable association footballers who died during their careers". I think that only relatively notable players would have news articles written about their deaths - you wouldn't likely see a news article about a Sunday League footballer dying, unless there were other factors involved. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I can find quite a lot of articles about the death of a 15 y/o youth player for an Italian 8th-division team, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should include every person who died. We're likely to get Dan from down the road who enjoyed 5-a-side getting added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should follow the same principle of disambiguation pages or notable people of cities: if they have a Wikipedia article, they can be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Lee Vilenski- we need a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria e.g. only if they're notable (i.e. have a Wikipedia article about them). Currently that list includes someone who got beaten to death after scoring an own goal in a village football match- they're clearly not a notable person. Also, we need to be careful about listing causes of death- I notice Lee Collins (footballer, born 1988) was listed as suicide, which isn't supported by any source- no cause of death has been announced, and there's an ongoing inquest. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To further the point, adding non-notable people to that list violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Another example being we have names of all the teenagers who died in the 2019 Flamengo training ground fire- none of them are notable, so we shouldn't be memorialising them here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As the vast majority of footballers with Wikipedia articles are professional, would it be worth renaming the page "List of professional association footballers who died during their careers"? Would it also be worth merging with List of association footballers who died while playing, or at least renaming that to reflect the professional status of the players mentioned in the article? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would merge the contents of List of association footballers who died while playing into List of association footballers who died during their careers (maybe dividing into two tables?). I wouldn't rename though, as a lot of players are notable for having played internationally (but were semi-pro/amateur). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499, yes I agree Dr Salvus 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that the article is in violation of WP:CHRONO due to being listed in backwards chronological order..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A girl I went to high school with who played JV soccer died in a manner completely unrelated to playing soccer. There was local coverage of it at the time that mentioned she played for the team so we could probably find a cite, but nothing else. No lasting coverage, no coverage at all other than hyper-local, no coverage of her while she was still alive, etc. Should she be included? There are undoubtedly countless others like her. We can't possibly include every single soccer player who died for any reason while they happened to be a competitive soccer player or the list would be ridiculously unmanageable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

For a start, almost everyone with no age listed doesn't look to be a professional footballer that would meet WP:GNG. Most of them died in notable events (mostly plane crashes), but that doesn't make them notable, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. And almost all of the people listed and aged under 18 look like they'd never meet WP:GNG either, as they're mostly all youth team players. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If we want to remove non-notable players from this list, I guess we'd need an RFC for it. My thoughts on options would be: leave as is (any footballer with a source can be added), remove everyone who doesn't currently have an article, remove everyone who doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY but keep anyone who does (as they're a valid redlink), remove all youth players and those known only for notable accidents e.g. the 2 non-league players who died in the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash, players who died in the 1960 Danish football air crash- we could link to these incidents in a see also section. Other suggestions would be welcome. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cerezo Osaka seasons

Going through Category:Sport articles with topics of unclear notability I noticed all of the Cerezo Osaka season articles (2015–2018) (see: 2015 Cerezo Osaka season) all violated WP:NOTSTATS and didn't even have proper lede sentences, but as a J.League team's season would pass WP:GNG/would be eligible for an article. Does anyone want to volunteer to fix these up or should we just WP:TNT them? SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the articles created by this user (who was globally locked for creating this kind of statsdumps) it is far from the only one. There seem to be hundreds like this (I cound 129 created on 4 April 2018 alone) so I suspect they are just copied and pasted from data.j-league.or.jp, which is the ref given for these results tables. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The team was in a fully professional league for all of these years, however, the articles in their current state aren't very useful- especially the seasons that have all the u-23 fixtures. The squad lists and results for senior team are acceptable content, it would just need some summary prose to complement it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise the scale of the problem, thanks for looking into it. I might be in favour of WP:TNT-ing/soft deleting these. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically meeting WP:NSEASONS is irrelevant when there's no sources and it's just a stat dump. Prove GNG or delete. Giant Snowman 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe 6–0 Galatasaray

Found this oldie in new page feed, what do peeps think on how notable a game this is? Govvy (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The match went down in history as the most different victory in the Fenerbahçe-Galatasaray derby. If by the most different they mean the largest victory, I would say it's notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The article feels so flat! Seems to lack depth about the game etc. Govvy (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be merged/redirected to The Intercontinental Derby. Giant Snowman 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

After some review, it seems this is Fenerbahce's largest win against Galatasaray. I can see this being a good article if done right. At the moment it's in a really poor state. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap, never before have I seen a single sentence supported by TWENTY-FIVE citations :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs major cleanup but shouldn't be deleted. I was also very surprised at the string of citations ahaha Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Err, I would disagree. Aside from the score line there doesn't appear to be any lasting notability. Similar issue here Fenerbahçe S.K. 0–7 Galatasaray S.K.. If it's only notability is that it is currently the highest scoring game (for one side or the other) we're into the territory of creating articles that are primed to lose their significant notability factor (if there was even significant notability) to be replaced with another match in the future. Koncorde (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, [Ermin Yildirim who appeared as a sub probably needs creating on our project. Koncorde (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any match should be a standalone article on the basis of scoreline only. It has to be notable for other reasons – a cup final, for example. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on feedback, going to tag this page and corresponding fixture for AfD and let it be hashed out there. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also Fenerbahçe S.K. 0–7 Galatasaray S.K. which meets the same non-notability in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have tagged both. 6-0 here and 0-7 here. Koncorde (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Friendlies (low profile trophy tournaments)

Following on from this discussion I flagged up about 13 or so templates with dozens of matches. I am not sure what the best way to approach this process for evaluation. Do we need to AfD each one, or PROD etc? The initial article that prompted the discussion was AfD'd, but the "parent" article still persists at Summer of Champions for instance. I don't want to both approach this in a clunky way that leaves lots of straggling references. Anyone with more experience than me got any ideas? Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean you can get good summer tourney articles, I give 2019 International Champions Cup a B+! But a lot of the time there are lazily done articles with little to no sources. That's not to suggest these Summer of Champions articles can't be sourced to satisfy GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean... I guess that's another article to question GNG over Govvy. It seems to be a lot of maps and stadiums, and little enduring notability. Koncorde (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

PROD/AFD the individual articles, and if enough are deleted then TFD the navboxes. Giant Snowman 16:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we go for individual seasons, or do we go for the competition first and then the individual seasons? In other words should we discuss International Champions Cup and then if that passes move onto 2019 International Champions Cup for example? (sorry Govvy)? Koncorde (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I do feel it's over-kill on the stadiums, maps. But I feel GNG is met on the example I gave. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

While most of these aren't necessarily notable, I'd still urge caution before going on a deletion spree, as some of them will be notable, probably some of the older competitions, and possibly the ones that are most closely set up to actual tournaments and crown winners (as opposed to "here's a collection of friendlies.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's kind of why I wanted ideas of how to tackle it. I am happy to start with each one at a time (rather than PROD'ing dozens) but would rather have a consensus from the project on how to approach. Koncorde (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hernanes, again

Those series of IP addresses just won't stop despite multiple warnings from various users across this project. I'd seen from the page history that this has gone on for around two years with no obvious consensus reached from anywhere. I have warned the recent IP addresses used. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page be semi-protected (possibly at least a month)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's been indefinitely semi-protected by EdJohnston- thanks to them for doing it, as it seems like years of IP vandalism. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it has. We'll still need to look out for registered accounts as what I've seen in the past. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Kelechi Iheanacho

The page is located at "Iheanacho", but the article uses "Ịheanachọ" (with the dots) throughout. Which one is correct? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the underdot was not part of our diacritics for titles. I'd have to look it up, but I think the current situation is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No views on which form is used, but we need consistency - so if the article is at 'Iheanacho' then we should use 'Iheanacho' throughout. If 'Ịheanachọ' is correct then the article should be moved. Giant Snowman 14:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was questioning that on the subject's talk page back in 2018 where there was no basis on that undiscussed move back then, saying about the number of sources which uses the extra dots below the end letters. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I just standardized the spelling to the same as title, without diacritics. WP:COMMONNAME seems to omit diacritics, but if someone want to open a RM be my guest.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a stance on whether we should use the version with or without diacritics, but the non-diacritic version of any name is more commonly used than the one with diacritics, just out of convenience (and lack of a physical key on the keyboard often times). This goes for Slavic, Spanish, Nordic, etc. names. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we even know if the diacritic version is correct? Are there any sources at all that spell his name that way? – Pee Jay 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article seems to suggest so. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

1972–73 UEFA Cup

I was looking at Tottenham games on the article, but is it incomplete? It feels somewhat confusing, the matches under the table doesn't seem to all be there. So I was slightly confused, is this suppose to be complete or not? Govvy (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopelessly incomplete. There are loads of match summaries missing. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

lol, k, that clears up that confusion then. Cheers, I am just working some data off of it for a Spurs season article. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been adding the missing Tottenham game data, I've decided to try and modify from the external links to cite format. If anyone wants to help please do. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RCF Paris

Quick question: what is the editing pattern for this? Racing Club de France Football has changed names many times throughout history. Sometimes, it was called Racing Club de Paris; in this case, we called it "RC Paris" in the infobox. The question is, what is the editing pattern for when it is called Racing Club de France? RCF Paris? RC Paris? RC France? Or in full Racing Club de France? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, any of those. I don't think there's an exact science to this. I tend to prefer using a shorter title, as sometimes long-form throws off the infobox.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It depends. For Racing Club Beirut, I use Racing Beirut as it's the common name. For Racing Club de Avellaneda I would just use Racing. Each club has it's own common name, so if it's not clear in the club article, you should try to see what sources are calling the club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For the French club, I think using 'RC Paris' is fine. Giant Snowman 16:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean for when it's called Racing Club de France we call it RC Paris? (Just to confirm.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would use RC France and RC Paris, when the club was respectively called Racing Club de France and Racing Club de Paris. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme1499. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple heights with different sources

When different sources give different heights for a player, what do we do? Should we do what is done at Cristiano? What I personally usually do is pick the one with the most reliable sources backing it up & I leave an invisible message in the infobox height parameter saying "this source says this, the other one that". Should I leave a note or should I keep putting invisible messages? Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've only seen this issue come up with Ronaldo and Koulibaly. I think 99% of the time, you can stick with what you think is the most reliable source. If it's contentious, maybe we can put in a range with sources as was proposed above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Brianna Pinto

I just created the article for Brianna Pinto. She doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY because she won't play a professional match until June and has not been capped by the senior national team, but I thought there were enough sources to meet WP:GNG and decided to be WP:BOLD. If there's consensus that she doesn't, though, I think we can relegate it to a draft and make it live when she makes her first NWSL appearance. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Appearances in the infobox

Does the appearances parameter in the infobox for clubs played by a player include exhibition matches? --Hey mid (contribs) 02:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heymid: No, only league matches. Even cup games are excluded. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I just have another question: Should years played only spawn years where they played league matches? E.g. if the player played exhibition matches in 2021 but didn’t play in the regular season and then their contract expired, should we write 2020 or 2021 as end year? --Hey mid (contribs) 02:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heymid: The yearspan in the infobox is contract-based: if they signed on 1 September 2020, and made their debut (friendly, cup, league, whatever) on 20 January 2021, we would still show 2020 as the starting year. Otherwise, 3rd-choice goalkeepers who don't play wouldn't have yearspans. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 03:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's accurate for players who are contracted to clubs in winter leagues, but some leagues like Major League Soccer are summer leagues. If a player signs for a club in a summer league at the end of the previous calendar year, I think it makes more sense to only mention the following year as the start of their tenure. – Pee Jay 16:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heymid: According to User:GiantSnowman, we begin a youth player's pro career at their first appearance (not including friendlies). This has gone through much debate, though. Just saying. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that their senior career begins at their first official appearance is not subject to contention. The only disagreement is regarding whether we should close or not the youth career. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Giant Snowman 07:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo height

@RandomCanadian removed the height parameter from Cristiano Ronaldo's infobox stating: "he's not notable for being particularly tall or short; infobox is for important details, not trivial stats; and well if the sources themselves can't agree on it... rm detail which is not infobox worthy". In my opinion, just because different sources report a slight range of different heights, it doesn't mean we should omit the height altogether (the note is also a good way to go around this). What are your thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are that per WP:INFOBOX infoboxes are supposed to be about important details, not simply every mathematical fact. Since the subject is not notable for being particularly tall or short, that means height is not an important detail. Because of that, I have look at other reasons why we'd include such a fancrufty detail, but I only end up with NOTSTATS, which argues against it. And the fact the sources disagree on the exact number probably means this isn't very important information. After all, what does it change to anybody's life that Ronaldo is 1.86 or 1.87? I'd in fact suggest removing the |height= parameter entirely from all BLP infoboxes (since, unlike for some physical objects such as large ships or skyscrapers, height is rarely a defining characteristic - or for the few people who have such a reputation, ex. Napoleon [reportedly short], we don't even have nor need an exact or approximate number...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Height is quite a common remark / feature of sportspeople. It doesn't need to be a defining feature. However edit warring over whether Ronaldo is 1.86 or 1.87 on any given day is pointless. Koncorde (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Height is not irrelevant at all. The two best players of their generation – Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo – have substantially different physical characteristics. These characteristics, including height, no doubt have greatly influenced their styles of play. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. For those not following along at home, there are at least seven arguments in the archives about this, from which we can discern that he is somewhere between 1.85 and 1.89m in height. Does anyone really care? Probably not. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ronaldo (and Messi) have a lot of fanboys out there, for whom knowing exactly how tall their messiah is is very important. I agree, though, that it probably doesn't need to be mentioned, especially since we don't have any source that definitively states what his height should be. – Pee Jay 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Height is a usual and common parameter used on thousands of articles and should not be removed (if it's soruced). The players are (often) marked by the commentators by their height so i see no reason to omit it, especially after no discussion and getting reverted (BRD?). Kante4 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point is exactly that it is entirely irrelevant and that we should remove it from the infoboxes entirely. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with that proposal but a discussion prior should take place or at least after you got reverted once. Kante4 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents, I think height makes sense in sporting articles. It's all trivia anyways, why do you "really" need to know where they were born, or their youth clubs, or their full legal name etc etc. And in this case, see if there's a consensus on most reliable sources and just used those {Juve/Real Madrid/BDFutbol etc).--Ortizesp (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is an issue at all, I thought it obvious that a player's height, if available/sourced, would be relevant to include in an infobox about the player, for instance like on squad pages and player pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What useful encyclopedic information does it really bring to our readers? Not only is it information which changes over time (older people tend to get a wee bit shorter), but it brings absolutely nothing beyond stats trivia. In the very rare cases that a player's height has a noticeable impact on their career or is of itself worthy of mention, it is better to put that textually - for the vast majority of other players, it's just fancrufty NOTSTATS. And we have far too much of that anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SportingFlyer on this one - a players height is obviously relevant to include in the infobox as it has a pretty significant impact on the way a player plays. The fact that people are edit-warring over this further demonstrates this is the case. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, height should be included generally (and hey, at least we don't try and include weight like other sports!). It should be explicitly referenced in the infobox to avoid issues, and if sources conflict then there should be a discussion on the talk page to try and agree what is best. Giant Snowman 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Height is very basic information to include with a sports player's biography, I've just checked three or four different club websites in several different languages and it's always included in the player's profile. It's not as if we have to do WP:OR to get access to it. Furthermore I think this is so obvious that enforcing a "no height" rule would be confusing to new editors and possibly readers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Height is very common and is included in basically every player profile everywhere. Should definitely be included in the infobox. RedPatch (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not including it, it's agreeing on it. So, do we say it's 1.85m (ESPN, A book on biomechanics), 1.86m (Goal.com, A biography of him) or 1.87m (Eurosport, New York Times)? Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there any problem with 185-187cm, citing one of those sources for each height? SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't be. WP:V: "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." – Elisson • T • C • 11:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Henrique Raul Campora Carmo

Is there an article for an Henrique Raul Campora Carmo around? He played for Vitória F.C. in 1972-73, he scored against Tottenham in 1973,[7]. I was wondering if he qualifies for an article like José Torres (footballer, born 1938) who played for the same club. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not that I can see - should probably be created at Henrique Campora? Giant Snowman 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's Portuguese name, then it should be Henrique Carmo I think- Campora would be maternal surname, and Carmo would be paternal (it's the opposite way round to Spanish surnames). Or maybe Henrique Campora Carmo if other sources also use those names. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

worldfootball.net has Henrique Campora, Uruguayan-born, full name Henrique Raul Campora do Carmo. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

ForaDeJogo call him just Campora as a common name. Struway2 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If he's Uruguayan, then his name will likely follow the Spanish naming system, so Campora is the one that should be used. And that seems like the WP:COMMONNAME anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've started Draft:Henrique Campora, don't know if anyone can added to it, cheers Govvy (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, Thanks for the cleanup. Seem to have slightly different stats on. [8], I went through a lot of google searches, must be some better offline sources for him. But what do you think, is there enough towards NFOOTY? Govvy (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ZeroZero is not a RS, if that helps...yes, I think he passes NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Over 100 fully-pro league apps and UEFA Cup appearances are as notable as it can get. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAICS, there's only one source so far which appears to meet the 'significant coverage' requirement; so might not be "as notable as it can get". Further work is required before considering a move to main space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Pau FC

Hello. How come Pau FC is being referred to as Pau FC and not Pau in articles? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume because the first paragraph of the article says commonly abbreviated to Pau FC. Also, Pau FC players have "Pau FC" in the infobox in fr.wiki, such as Antoine Batisse and Younn Zahary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

French Wikipedia puts "SM Caen" while we usually put Caen - it's different. They keep the additional "FC"s and "AS"s most of time.
I guess it says it's usually just said Pau FC... but then again, there is only one Pau club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Either seems acceptable to me, though it is odd we use 'Pau FC' when we don't use FC/AS for the majority of clubs in France. The only thing I can think of that is similar is the WP:KARLSRUHER essay, which suggests using FC etc. for German clubs only when the club name is otherwise just a single word, so perhaps that should be applied more widely for consistency? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Odisha FC: Rebrand or New Club?

Hi! User:Coderzombie recently noticed on the website for Indian Super League club Odisha FC a part where it says "Formed in 2019". On wikipedia, we treat Odisha FC as the continuation of the Delhi Dynamos FC since we all thought it was a simple rebrand and location change but the wording on the website bought up some questions. There is no mention of the Delhi Dynamos on the Odisha website. Also, reliable sources such as this, this, this state that this is a new club. One of the sources say "After Odisha FC was formed to replace the team from the capital city, Delhi Dynamos, which shut down its operations earlier this year" while another says "The club came into existence after an MoU was signed between Delhi Soccer Private Limited and Government of Odisha on August 31.".

However, other articles such as this from goal.com says "Delhi Dynamos rebranded themselves as Odisha FC" which suggests a continuation. What are your thoughts here? I am leaning towards new club due to the Memorandum of understanding but just want thoughts from elsewhere. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a technical continuation. [9] [10] The technicality seems to be that it's a new club, but the memorandum means they could use Delhi's players, so technically it's a continuation. I think the way it's displayed now makes sense, there are teams in the US which move but are technically considered expansion teams, this seems similar. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The way those sources are presented, as well as the ones above, I think this is exactly like what happened with the Houston Dynamo back in 2015 when the San Jose Earthquakes "relocated" from San Jose to Houston. The Earthquakes didn't relocate, the ownership group who owned them relocated and took the players with them. Major League Soccer then considered the Dynamo a new expansion franchise while the Earthquakes kept their history for when they returned a few years later. Based on @Coderzombie:'s link for the ISL website, it looks like they don't consider them the same club either and reliable sources say that the ownership moved but the club is brand new. At least that is how I see it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: apart from what you have mentioned, Indian Super League website mentions club stats separately. So it seems to me that this is a new club and should be treated as such. Coderzombie (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Turkish football champions

There is currently a tag on this list concerning its status, as one user (GGT) claims it to be not neutral. I personally have included several reliable sources in the talk page and the article itself. The discussion concerning the former championships was also discussed before twice, here and here, and the outcome was that they are supported by the sources and should be included in the article. I kindly ask you to have a look and express your opinion in the talk page. In my opinion there is no breach of neutrality at all. Akocsg (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, all must be included, and they're properly sourced. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact

07:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Task force bot-like editing

Hi all. My watchlist has been absolutely destroyed this weekend by bot-like automated edits adding task force parameters to talk pages. Surely if these edits are really necessary (and I'm not convinced we need a task force for every country and for seasons within the wp:footy project) this should have been done by a bot rather than a human editor, so that they could be easily hidden from watchlists? Courtesy pinging @Jevansen: who made all the edits on my watchlist. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Gary Oldman's father

Our article on the actor Gary Oldman contains this sentence: "In 2011, he learned from his mother that his father represented Millwall after World War II: "Just after the war, [my mother] ran a boarding house for football players—Millwall players. And I knew that my dad was involved somehow with the reserve team. But two weeks ago my mum said, 'Oh yeah, your dad played for Millwall. When he was young he had a couple of first team games.'" There's a good reliable source for Oldman having said this, but it's pretty easy to prove that his father never played league football for Millwall. Before I add a sentence saying something like "Despite this, there is no record of Oldman's father having played for Millwall's first team", it occurred to me that it's just possible he played in the FA Cup rather than the league. Can anyone confirm or deny.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Rollin's Soccer at War hasn't got him in the Millwall pages, which rules out the main wartime comps:

{{cite book |last=Rollin |first=Jack |title=Soccer at War 1939–45 |publisher=Headline |location=London |date=2005 |pages=370–373 |isbn=978-0-7553-1431-7}}

ENFA haven't got anyone named Oldman, which rules out an FA Cup app for a league club: you can get that much from the player search page http://www.enfa.co.uk/playersearch.php without a subscription. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

He could have appeared in any number of regional competitions that were still active then. I would personally not bother adding any of our personal comment to the story as this is both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as your are personally researching the outcome, and would end up using a source that might neglect to mention his father but is not exhaustive as to the many permutations by which his mother meant the words "played for the first team". Koncorde (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Wassim Abdel-Hadi

Should Wassim Abdel-Hadi, who is a Palestinian born in Lebanon without Lebanese citizenship, have the various expatriate footballer/sportspeople categories for having played for Lebanese clubs? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess so, although I kind of think we need refugee categories, in the same vein as expatriate/emigrant categories.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Expatriate, "an expatriate is a person residing in a country other than their native country", which isn't the case of Abdel-Hadi. He is, though, a person residing in a country different from their nationality/citizenship. Refugee categories would make sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Are we listing sponsors in articles now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MLS_Goal_of_the_Year_Award&curid=4300661&diff=1018661988&oldid=1016995532 I find this surprising. I don't like moving stadium articles every time sponsorship changes, but that's a legal entity, the award is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We've been listing sponsors in articles for as long as football articles have existed.

See, for example:

EFL Cup: "The EFL Cup (referred to historically, and colloquially, as the League Cup), currently known as the Carabao Cup for sponsorship reasons, is an annual knockout football competition in men's domestic English football."
EFL Trophy: "The English Football League Trophy, currently known as the Papa John's Trophy for sponsorship reasons, is an annual English association football knockout competition open to the 48 clubs in EFL League One and EFL League Two...."
Ligue 1: "Ligue 1, officially known as Ligue 1 Uber Eats for sponsorship reasons...."

.....and dozens of others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME suggests it is is valid : Where an undisputed official name exists: It should always be provided early in an article's introduction Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

and MOS:LEADALT : significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Spike 'em (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally what we should be doing. We should list official names, and explain it is due to sponsorship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 in association football

In my opinion, the column of defending champions in the tables of international club competitions should be replaced by that of the finalists of the various continental cups. Dr Salvus 14:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

James Gifford

Hi all. I have created a stub on the Argentine cricketer James Gifford, who also played football for Flores in the 1890s. Just leaving this here incase there's anyone here who wishes to expand the football side of the article. StickyWicket (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Super League

Would y'all back a breakaway article for this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Mason - One to watch

I think a lot of sources have picked up miss-information. Tottenham announced along with the sacking that Mason would be in charge of first team affairs for today. Per [11] For some reason a few editors are installing him as Interim manager! Other sources seem to say interim, I feel that a lot of legit websites are posting incorrect information. So... one to watch! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

As an example, the Guardian says ...Ryan Mason will assume first-team duties and is expected to see out the season .... "expected to" != "will definitely" Isn't he younger than half the team, or is he possibly another Steve Coppell? Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

He does seem awfully young to manage a club in the European Super League but that's what the source is suggesting will happen.--Echetus Xe 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, The Telegraph is reporting Mason and Chris Powell will take charge for the rest of the season. But as the club's official communication says, more announcements will come in due time. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me everyone why I go and cry in a corner [12], #seasonsuicide. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, you are safe from relegation: worst case (or at least until the self-important 6 get kicked out!) Spike 'em (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Even know he is Interim manager, is he the youngest Premier League manager in history? Govvy (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Youngest is Lombardo at Crystal Palace, but don't know if Mason is younger than he was. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, just checked, and Mason is younger by over two years. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

National Premier Soccer League

I've been going through articles with the sports notability tag and there are several teams in the NPSL tagged with notability concerns such as Dakota Fusion FC (sourced only to Facebook.) I had a recent NPSL AfD close as no consensus - I haven't done the background work to save/delete the Dakota article yet, but was wondering if we had a blanket stance on the notability of the teams in this league apart from WP:GNG. It's not really well covered in the U.S. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth creating a section on the NPSL article detailing all the teams, or a separate article (List of National Premier Soccer League teams) where they can redirect, with a brief bio (location, stadium, date of foundation etc.)? Giant Snowman 14:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Both already exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Without the detail that would justify a merge of the individual club articles. Giant Snowman 15:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Teams" section has a table with all the information you have indicated above, as well as their debut season and current coach. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come across one of these which fails GNG, should I boldly redirect or send to AfD? Working on Dakota Fusion research right now, the first few hits which came up in a specific newspaper search related to girls' softball so not off to a good start... SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The "List" article appears to be a historical list of all former and current teams (could be better organized - perhaps in a table), while the League article table just lists all info for current teams. RedPatch (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The info does not need to be duplicated - the colours used at the main article teams section is a nightmare, and so I suggest the list is expanded & improved. Giant Snowman 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(as a supporter of an NPSL club) I believe the general notability stance is that any club that has participated in the U.S. Open Cup is notable, otherwise it has to meet WP:GNG. As for Dakota Fusion research, The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead (www.inforum.com) and E Pluribus Loonum have some coverage of both their men's and women's teams, while their Twitter also links to some coverage that might work. Finally, I agree that we probably should expand the list before anything else, but we'll have to keep an eye on the format/size simply because of the sheer number of teams that have passed through the league. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Shahidul Alam Sohel

Hello, guys. I found that there are two articles about Shahidul Alam Sohel. One is Shahidul Alam (footballer) and the other one is Shahidul Yousuf Sohel. For this situation, I'm requesting to take necessary steps to merge these articles. – Waraka Saki (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They seem to be two different footballers. This is made super confusing because Sohel's article seems to be written about Alam. Sohel was born in 1988. Alam was born in 1991. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made Shahidul Alam (footballer) into a dab for now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. – Waraka Saki (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy

Could y'all please give your opinion on this RM at Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of parent category in addition to sub-category - consensus requested

On Billy Forbes (footballer, born 1990) was having a disagreement with user:GiantSnowman about this category. College athlete categories exist in a wide number of sports and are diffused by the school (example - Category:Akron Zips men's soccer players). All “men's soccer players” for a given school are also “men's soccer players” generally so there is little use in also adding the parent category. It is notable that for all other sports, several which are much larger than the soccer category), the parent category is diffused. One benefit for the projects to diffuse existing sub-categories is that it gives a manageable list of individuals whose schools do not have sport categories that can be assessed to see if it is worthwhile to create them. Including an irrelevant parent category creates category clutter which diverts attention from more distinct categories. Consensus needed - should the soccer categories follow the other American college athlete categories or chart it’s own path? Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify - the question is simply this: if a college soccer player is categorised by their college team (e.g. Category:Akron Zips men's soccer players) should they also appear in the parent category Category:College men's soccer players in the United States? I say yes. Non-diffusing categories ate common and useful. Giant Snowman 12:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What is your reasoning in this case? Common isn’t a reason to do it (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) so please explain the usefulness in your opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say no as the first cat already implies the second (per subcat). Kante4 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not diffusing in this case is useful for the same reason that e.g. Category:English footballers is non-diffusing, even though we subcategorise by International status, geographical status etc. It's an important parent category that displays an overview of the topic. Specifically, if a player has played for more than one college, then people trying to search for (for example) number of college players will be thrown off, because that player will be found in (at least) 2 subcats... Giant Snowman 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, note that are you confusing nationality here with location of competition. Someone who is a college men's soccer player in the United States is not necessarily an American. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not, thanks though. Giant Snowman 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I contend it is best for it to be consistent with other college athlete categories and not put in the college men's soccer players category. Using GS's logic shouldn't it be in Category:American soccer players? The bigger issue is why the main category isn't split by gender.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is - Category:American soccer players and Category:American women's soccer players. Giant Snowman 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I had that question about “English footballers” too. Why isn’t it “men's footballers” since the women are a sub-category and not included in the main category. It’s one or the other (either group them together without a gender identifier or use gender identifiers for both). Rikster2 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies - hence why we have England national football team and England women's national football team. Giant Snowman 12:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but the category is not just applied to National team members, right? It is a nationality identifier. As such you shouldn’t have one sex gender identified while the other is assumed. That seems like WP:GHETTO, regardless of the sexism inherent in how a national team identifies itself Rikster2 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this aspect previously and this is the consensus. Throwing around accusations of 'sexism' will get you nowhere. Giant Snowman 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not calling you or the project sexist. I assumed the articles were named after how the national teams identify in “real life” and saying that is a sexist process, which it is. Rikster2 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it goes back to primary topic then the US national teams pretty clearly identify "men's" and "women's," so it seems like those categories should follow if that is truly the underlying guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

COMMONNAME applies. In the United States and a few other countries, saying the "national team" is ambiguous, as it could refer to both the men's and women' senior teams. This isn't the case elsewhere, where it is very clear that the team in question is the men's. As GS has already pointed out, there have already been numerous discussions regarding this, with the reasoning not being rooted in any kind of inherent "sexism". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Take the US soccer players category to CFD to rename to 'men's' and see what the consensus is. I can see both sides. Giant Snowman 14:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I have never once said that GiantSnowman or the project (and therefore any consensus discussion) was sexist or that this was the motive in how the articles were named. Rikster2 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I misread your second statement. I still don't agree per se, the naming (in real life) just reflects how common effectively the sport is in the country. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That may be true at the club or national team level, it doesn’t apply to player categories. Leah Williamson isn’t playing a sport called “women’s football” that is a subcategory of “football”. She’s no less an English footballer than Bukayo Saka. She’s just of a different sex and gender. Also, creating “men’s association football players” makes for a more common sense hierarchy — Category:Women's association football players is a subcat of Category:Sportswomen by sport but Category:Men's association football players is missing as a subcat of Category:Sportsmen by sport. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Category-wise, it makes sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that creating Category:Men's association football players makes sense or not creating one makes sense? Anyway, a nice benefit of creating Category:English men's footballers is an easy way to avoid having to place every single male English footballer article in Category:English sportsmen. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I'm saying that I agree with what you said. So we should create Category:Men's association football players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:College men's soccer players in the United States should be diffused wherever possible for consistency not only with other US college athlete categories, but also with pro athlete categories for the US and elsewhere, e.g. Category:Footballers in England, Category:National Football League players, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that we should diffuse to the maximum extent practicable. We should avoid placing articles in the parent category of another category that the article is also in. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

But players are not added to Category:Footballers in England etc - they are categorised by nationality, club, and league, amongst other things. Giant Snowman 20:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I know; Category:Footballers in England is diffused. Category:College men's soccer players in the United States should get the same treatment. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Since its creation in 2010, Category:College men's soccer players in the United States has had the {{catdiffuse}} tag on it.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Diffuse all players in "Category:College men's soccer players in the United States" into subcategories by team, and remove the parent category from their articles. It's literally in Wikipedia's guidelines (Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization – "Except for non-diffusing subcategories, pages for sub-categories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible.") SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Move

Hello. I didn't want to do a whole WP:RM, but basically, would you feel it's a good idea to move Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy to Paris Saint-Germain Academy? I personally think so, because this is the common name, and this is how it's actually called... see this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if no one responds, I'm starting an RM. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Start a RM but the proposed move looks sound. Giant Snowman 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I started an RM, can you help me attract more attention to it (include in WikiProject, etc) Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Will do shortly. Giant Snowman 17:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandal

An extremely tenacious vandal has resurfaced again, using multiple IPs this time it seems. Please could some eyes be kept on Matt Lawton, Jay Rodriguez, and Jack Cork, which are among the vandal's main targets..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I was actually considering requesting to remove indefinite semi protection off Jack Cork as I believed this vandal had stopped forever but unfortunately what ChrisTheDude noticed shows they're back, probably trolling the page I mentioned after that was removed.

This vandal has weirdly mentioned me in a couple of edit summaries too e.g. here as well as a couple of other less aware users. As usual we have the morning page watchers noticing trolling, like the one who started this section at the time shown at their signature was done this morning.

Also recently another three pages this vandal regularly trolls are this page, Talk:Harry Toffolo and Jack Sock, the latter is basically similar to the vandalism on Jack Cork in the past. I should think other users may well be aware of this habitual behaviour on at least one of those pages the vandal has been trolling for ages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There is also another thing I should mention - on user talk pages this vandal has edited today, I spotted here that they used my signature thinking I wrote this but I certainly did not as the page history shows. I'm sure page watchers would know in these situations those users like me would not have wrote these vandal messages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Rapid București be included in the list?

An IP has added Rapid București to List of association football clubs with multiple consecutive promotions or relegations. They finished 1st in the 2016 2nd tier, but seem to have folded that summer; from there, things get complicated between 2016 and 2018, with two (?) teams claiming to be Rapid (as far as I can understand). My question is: should clubs who have been re-founded in lower tiers due to financial irregularities (a very common sight in Italian football, for example) be counted as a "relegation" for the purposes of the list? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

New categories

I propose to create two new categories: Category:Male Footballers and Category:Female Footballers. Dr Salvus 10:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? What purpose would having such colossal categories serve? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, note that Category:Association football players already exists, of which Category:Women's association football players is a sub-category -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

So what purpose does such colossal categories serve ChrisTheDude? ;) --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They are container categories, containing sub-cats ("by nationality", "by position", etc). I don't think there would be any justification for a single category containing every footballer article on WP, which must number in the hundreds of thousands...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks. There is no need for that as all players are in subcategories already. Kante4 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Silly and pointless idea @Dr Salvus:. Giant Snowman 17:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Oooops, I was distracted. I apologize Dr Salvus 17:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have, for example, Category:American soccer players and Category:American women's soccer players. These type of categories are fine. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, this isn't the first time you've suggested something rather silly and suggested you were distracted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Football presidents

What would be the occupation of someone who is the president of football clubs? A football executive, football official, football administrator, football president, football politician, football businessman, football director, football entrepreneur, or something else? I have seen inconsistency on defining of this job. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It varies. The role could be just ceremonial.--Echetus Xe 09:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

For example for Henri Patrelle. I would personally put "football executive" but it depends what others think. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Describing somebody as "a football executive who served as president of [CLUB]" is appropriate wording. Giant Snowman 14:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Macclesfield F.C.

Further to past discussion (for example, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_135#Macclesfield_teams), a new article about Macclesfield F.C. has been created (from a redirect page), but the team has no players, no league status, no references (and has no potential reliable sources beyond those relating to its Macclesfield Town F.C. phoenix origin). Seems premature to me.... Maybe reinstate the redirect, and move new article to draftspace? Paul W (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't currently demonstrate it, but there is at least some coverage of the new club in secondary sources already (also [13] [14] [15]). May not be too soon. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say wait until they have played their first game. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Article has been reverted by user:Onel5969 to redirect with note "no indication of notability" Paul W (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Olympique Lyonnais founding

There seems to be an issue with the founding date of Olympique Lyonnais. The French and German sites claim it's 1950, the latter is unsourced while the former is referenced by a dodgy French site. It is clearly the date that they split from another club in Lyon. That club was founded at some point in the 1890s, but the exact date is not sourced. So if someone could address that issue, it would be greatly appreciated (particularly since an anon vandal is changing the founding data of this article and many others). Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear in the text that it was founded in 1950. That's also when the club celebraetes: 60 years in 2010, 70 years in 2020, there is also some book. -Koppapa (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

1896 is the Sports club founding date at the University. There was already FC Lyon from 1893 (until it folded) and then Lyon Olympique de Villeurbanne which they wanted to take professional, but that went under, then WW2 came along... So that brings us to 1950. Origin dates are somewhat messy, but the info-box should really say 1950 in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

1950 appears to be the right answer. Per their own website.[16][17] For basic facts a Primary Source is sufficient but there is other French language sourcing out there. The foundation of 1896 can be accommodated in the lede and infobox in a similar way to West Ham United F.C. but it's unclear if the 1896 founding is for the football team so it is probably best to exclude it unless OL's own history clarifies. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Double categories

There's both Category:Albanian Superliga players‎ and Category:Kategoria Superiore players‎. Also Category:Kategoria e Dytë players‎ and Category:Albanian Second Division players‎. Any reasons for this or can someone merge them? --Fredde (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have Category:Albanian Superliga and Category:Kategoria Superiore, which have many duplicate categories. The Category:Kategoria Superiore were created later (in 2020), and seem to be duplicates, although they're at the correct category name (i.e. matching article title). Probably needs a CFD to get everything in those 2 categories and their subcategories merged. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Should restore matches which cancelled finally

In case continuous edit warring, I go here and ask:대한민국 헌법 removed some cancelled matches: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_AFC_Champions_League_qualifying_play-offs&diff=1017906394&oldid=1017906361&diffmode=source, his reason is https://www.the-afc.com/documents/afc-champions-league-2021-media-guide page 11, but I think we should keep these content because these matches is just cancelled and these was originally scheduled in draw video, we should keep cancelled matches. What do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge, Flix11, SuperJew, Qby, Fauzannaufan, and Matilda Maniac: Hhkohh (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would keep the old matches as that was the original scheduling, with a note that it was cancelled and rescheduled as xyz with appropriate sourcing. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dito. Kante4 (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Keep the old matches written and give notes to each cancelled matches. So the reader can know why the matches are not played Fauzannaufan (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But, It is AFC's official guide.대한민국 헌법 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the comments above: keep with a note stating that the games were cancelled. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

대한민국 헌법, draw is also official Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, draw is also official. But, official guide is newer than official draw.대한민국 헌법 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is almost a WP:RECENTISM thing. We don't just whitewash information because it changes. If we have a source saying it was supposed to happen on one date, and then another that it has been changed, we mention those things, not just pretend that was always the date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly a WP:RECENTISM argument. Deleting an entire segment based on some newer decisions will badly affect the page, and future viewers may get misinformation. I suggest to keep the the section AS IT WAS, stating both original and cancelled logs, along with the proper citations. Laser Victor 2017 ❯❯❯ talk

대한민국 헌법, also just deleting cancelled match violates wikipedia:Recentism Hhkohh (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a solid conclusion has been reached here that cancelled matches should still be showed. So the cancelled matches will be added to the article again. Thanks to all Wikipedians who have shared their opinion here Fauzannaufan (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

2021–22 EFL Championship

We currently have Draft:2021–22 EFL Championship and 2021–22 EFL Championship which are essentially the same thing. I’ve tried getting one deleted but my request got thrown out. Guess we don’t want to be editing the same stuff in two places about the one season?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems a bit stupid that this article is in mainspace before the previous season has finished IMO. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if its existence is correct but we also have 2021–22 Premier League before the current season has ended.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view it's reasonable to create an article for the new season when you know team(s) that will play in the competition, i.e. they can't be promoted or relegated. The 2021/22 PL article has been kicking around since late February / early March, when the teams at the top of the 2020/21 PL started reaching the number of points where they could no longer be caught by the teams in the relegation zone. This normally takes a bit longer in the lower leagues because it's usually quite late in the season before mid-table teams can't move up or down. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just off to create ESL pages for the next 20 years then ;) Spike 'em (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

On a more serious note, just turn the Draft into a redirect to the mainspace article. Spike 'em (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

FCUS Ambert

Hello. I just created FCUS Ambert. I have a dilemma. WorldFootball.net says the club was founded in 1922, while Stat Football Club France says 1921. Can anyone help me find more sources on this? And if we have a dilemma, should I put both years like I did or just pick one? I need a bit of help. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'll just keep what I put. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Eddy Silvestre Pascual Israfilov

Could someone help me fix this article? It's a mess. Eddy Silvestre Pascual Israfilov. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not sure what you mean by mess. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It was a bit disorganized before I did some editing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Loan players

Hello. What is the correct way to write the club for players that are on loan? Is it:

John Smith (born 33 February 3333) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Templatonian Premier League club Sample, on loan from Martian League club Martia, and the Templatonia national team.
John Smith (born 33 February 3333) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Templatonian Premier League club Sample, on loan from Martia, and the Templatonia national team.

And when the player does not play for a national team, do we write:

John Smith (born 33 February 3333) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Templatonian Premier League club Sample on loan from Martia.
John Smith (born 33 February 3333) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Templatonian Premier League club Sample, on loan from Martia.

(I ommitted "Martian League" for the last two, but if we should put it in the first thing then I'll put it here too). What's the correct way? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I would put the league for both the parent and loanee club, and I would put commas only if there is a national team present (so the first option in both cases). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, wait. No comma for the loan? Doesn't that sound a bit weird without a comma? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent, I've just seen it without a comma most of the time if the national team isn't listed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

World Football Elo Ratings

The IP who keeps treating this as the ideal space for a statistical database dump has not relented despite previous attempts on the talk page, here, and their talk page... Any further opinion as to how much of the STATS-cruft should be kept/removed is appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Personally I think the only stats that really should be kept is the top 25 rankings (compared to top 100 as it currently is) and the list of number one ranked teams. The rest of those stats can probably be removed. HawkAussie (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: I tried explaining it to the IP, here a long time ago (before I had an account); on the article talk page, and now even on their current talk page, but (and I verified this through xtools) they never, under any of their previous IPs, seem to have participated in any talk page discussion. Let's see if it gets reverted again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

They're back at it, and they have not answered on their talk page or on the article talk. I'm starting to think the only solution would be a partial block from the article so that they can hopefully attempt discussion? @HawkAussie: In case all of the above doesn't get you a ping. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Still no answer... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have given them a final warning on it- if (or more likely, when) it happens again, I'll raise at WP:ANI, as there's clear WP:CONSENSUS here not to post all that detail, and they're just WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 and HawkAussie: Exactly like clockwork. I've linked them to here, but seeing the rant they've left at the article talk page don't have too much hope on this one. @El C: My go-to ressource for page protection - mind SP to that article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So as asked I'm here to discuss and try to defend the updaters / contributors of this page as I just stumbled on your wild edition out of almost nowhere. Please show your proof of consensus. How many are you ? 2 persons ? This page exists for more than a decade and I've been routinely checking at least every month since about the useful and obviously serious information it contains (and much more reasonable and oconsistent than the Fifa ranking by the way). Maybe a few things cold be trimmed like say limiting only to last 100 years, some cluster stats boy the hi-low of each squad but others like the decades average are very interesting. What should be the criteria for respecting the source ? The elorating page is out there for years and it actually is preferred by many people to the Fifa ranking. Please tell me when and where the "consensus" was reached, for starters, so that I can check the history of this discussion and try to assess your arguments.2A01:E0A:4FA:7460:3999:4717:24ED:2EE7 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to edit but you came first. so please stop talking about "them" (and like "clockwork" ?, "rant they've left" ??, I see you don't seem to be open to discussion as you don't have "hope" - sound quite arrogant) , and or actually I'll start myself to complain of your behaviour. Please start a proper discussion, I'm just getting in this one and I see no a hint of an argument. Given your aggressiveness, I'm starting to wonder if you don't have some vested interest. 2A01:E0A:4FA:7460:3999:4717:24ED:2EE7 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The page as you want to make it is a clear violation of what Wikipedia (an encyclopedia_ should be. An encyclopedia is "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge". Not an excessive listing of context-less statistics. Not a fansite. Not a repository for original research based on your interpretation of statistics. And because nobody was complaining about it does not mean it was correct - that is the archetypical appeal to tradition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that only top 25 should be there, as discussed before, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But the page is now fully protected on the IP's preferred version against the WP:CONSENSUS here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The current (protected) version is a mess and fails WP:NOTSTATS and probably WP:NOR. It does seem there is a lone editor in favour of the longer version. Spike 'em (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, looks like a flagfest. The "old" version looks cleaner and easier to read/understand. Kante4 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Protection expired. Let's leave this discussion open for a wee bit longer see if there's any objection to this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted, because there's clear consensus here- unanimous from everyone except that one user. The fact they add no sources mean it's clear WP:OR, as well as all the other guidelines listed above that it is in violation of. Hopefully, the user will come here and try and explain calmly and rationally why they should be included, and them adding sources would be a start. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask, did anybody check the sources before making conclusions about WP:OR? Every table I checked was sourced (either at [18] or [19]), except for the "Highest rated matches" table, which was not sourced, and which I could not find at first glance. This was not even a question of routine calculation, since all the data was directly there in the sources.

WP:NOSTATS says: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be... Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included."

Thus, WP:NOSTATS does not mean "no statistics", it means no context-less statistics. All the tables have text explaining what they are showing, and actually do a good job presenting that information in a clear manner. So, to clarify, what exactly are the reasons for excising the tables that were previously in the article? Krea (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the ELO rankings table itself and WP:NOFULLTEXT. This is marginal, in my opinion. The full table is only 200 or so entries, and I think a top 100 was fine. I'd even argue for the full table since it's not that long. A top 20/25/50 is more problematic, since it will entirely exclude nations from some regions (e.g., a top 50 table would have no nations from the OFC and only two nations from CONCACAF). If people do not want to display the full table, I would say that a top 100 is acceptable, but perhaps even better would be a top 20 for each region. Krea (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lots of the tables are simply statistics for the sake of statistics; and there was no context from independent secondary sources showing why these statistics are important. As for how much we need to include, the point of WP isn't being a stats website. If the top 20 only includes a few countries from certain regions, that's more an accurate reflection of circumstances (see, the articles on the FIFA rankings also include the top 20 only) - some regions simply play football better than the others. If these statistics are indeed important, you can surely find a secondary source (not the website publishing those) which demonstrates why each category is relevant? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Lots of the tables are simply statistics for the sake of statistics" -- but that's not proscribed by wikipedia's rules, at least as far as I understand them. There are plenty of articles that are just statistical in nature, especially for sports.

"...there was no context from independent secondary sources showing why these statistics are important" -- does there need to be? It's a page on world rankings, so wouldn't it make sense to present tables of rankings over time, by decade, highest ranking by team etc? This counts as related data would it not?

"As for how much we need to include, the point of WP isn't being a stats website" -- again, my reply to this would be wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and, as such, data like this is permissible as long as it is presented within context and with explanation, which is exactly what WP:NOSTATS says. Perhaps the correct answer here is that the data in these tables should be split off into sub-articles such as with European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics and List of Formula One driver records etc.

"If the top 20 only includes a few countries from certain regions, that's more an accurate reflection of circumstances (see, the articles on the FIFA rankings also include the top 20 only) - some regions simply play football better than the others" -- indeed, any cut off point would be an accurate reflection of circumstances since the table is a statement of current circumstances by definition. The point of presenting data is to present data. If you abridge data at a "bad" point, then you will miss perhaps pertinent data. My point was that if you cut off at 20, say, then all you are presenting is effectively the rankings of the top teams in UEFA and CONMEBOL. That's fine, you can do that; but that doesn't make it "good" if what you are intending to do is present an overview of world rankings, since regions have vastly different levels of ability, as you pointed out. My concern here was euro-centrism: a top 20 table perfectly serves most big European countries and the bigger South American countries. But what if you are an African user and want to see how you rate against another team at the Africa Cup of Nations? What then? Sorry, your country isn't important enough to be listed? Not good. As I said, I'd prefer the whole table, sectioned up, or else maybe a top 20 for each region. But I think the top 100 is fine as a compromise.

"If these statistics are indeed important, you can surely find a secondary source (not the website publishing those) which demonstrates why each category is relevant?" -- What are you asking for here? Are you asking for an external source on why a table on Averages by decade, say, is relevant in the World Football Elo Ratings page? This is ridiculous is it not? Wikipedia does not need a source on what info to include in the encyclopedia itself! (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) Does it not follow that presenting tables on, say, highest ever rankings by teams is pertinent in an article about world rankings? As I said above, if this is really an issue for some people, then maybe the best course of action is to spin this data off into a specific sub-article. Krea (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about unofficial rankings self-published by a hobbyist on a website. An encyclopedia is supposed to be only a summary of the most important details of a subject. Sometimes that involves some statistics. But then we don't include something in an article simply because it is true, or even if there's a source for it (and yes, there needs to be a source for it, see WP:RS and WP:V). We also need to establish whether the information is significant enough to provide an encyclopedic overview of the subject. In the case of statistics, we need to see them used and reported on by sources outside of the publisher of the statistics.

For example, indeed, many sports articles include statistics. Coverage of many sports is indeed based often on statistics (for example, see this about baseball, which uses statistics to analyse the outcome; or this about cricket, which uses statistics to give insights into the weaknesses of each them and what to expect). In this case, we'd need independent sources using these statistics to demonstrate that they are helpful to provide context and analysis. Without that, the stats tables and most of everything in that article is clearly failing WP:NOTSTATS as there's no explanation of how they are relevant. Wikipedia is not a database or web hosting service: if users of that website want access to these statistics, they're better off just getting them directly from the website - this also avoids problems with such an excessive amount of statistics requiring an excessive amount of time to maintain.

We only keep a small amount because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to list statistics. The geography of successful football teams is unfortunately mostly European and South American (though to be fair, FIFA has Senegal at no. 20...). But then, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs - it's to provide useful information to our readers; and the top few teams of a given ranking system are "useful information"; but too much and it becomes a misuse of Wikipedia (interested users should seek them at the source directly); and excessive statistics without independent analysis or context are not useful; they only provide clutter; and a needless backlog to maintain. Compare with FIFA World Rankings (which are the actual official ones). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But then aren't you arguing for the deletion of the whole article and not just those tables? That's a different argument. I absolutely agree that this is an "unofficial rankings self-published by a hobbyist on a website", so there is a clear question to be asked about WP:N. Here are two BBC articles that reference the site, but otherwise I agree there is not much: [20] and [21].

If you want want to delete the whole article, then that is one thing; but let's say you accept the article passes WP:N (with your abridged rankings table only). Then haven't you conceded that the data on the website is relevant for inclusion? What grounds is there to then proscribe, say, a separate article on rankings by decade? You seem to be arguing that every sub-selection of data needs an external reference for proof of WP:N. This is not true, since most of the tables that were removed are just re-collations of historical data in the main table.

Or, let's put this another way. Let's take the BBC articles above. Both of those references referred to the data in its capacity as a general, effective ranking for international teams. They were not arguing that some of it was good and the rest untrustworthy: they were taking it as a given that the raw data was accurate and the methodology was apposite. Thus, all data derived from that raw data, be it classified by decade, or highest rankings by team, or biggest upsets etc., is implicitly verified is it not? The question then is what is an acceptable quantity to reference here? I agree that taking literally everything from the website would be taking the piss, but the article as it is hasn't done that. To me, they have presented what is more or less a sensible list of derived data. It has all time high scores by team, by decade, historical first placed teams, highest rated matches and biggest upsets. I think that'd be an acceptable article. I do agree that Highest average ratings since 1970 can probably go, and Elo Ratings before each World Championship should either go or be in a specific sub-article, but otherwise I think the tables are reasonably appropriate, if you concede the website itself fundamentally passes WP:N.

On a personal note, I don't think any of this is really all that important. I came to this discussion because I wanted to check Scotland's ranking and prospects for qualification against their world cup group quali opponents and saw the protection. Is this article really worth getting your pants in a twist over? Let's suppose the article is an infraction of the guidelines; does it really matter? Is it a major violation? Does anybody really care? Is it going to affect anybody? Probably not. So, what's the point? Why be so offended by this completely innocuous article? So what if, aesthetically, you don't like big tables of statistics? So what if the main user is using this page as a sort of fan website by proxy? Do you really care that much? I'm not going to edit the article one way or the other, and am certainly not interested in an edit war, so you are free to do whatever you like as far as I'm concerned. I just think maybe a little perspective is needed. Consider that the all-time scores table has been referenced by an external reliable source, and you would have had it removed. Judge for yourself, ladies and gentlemen. Krea (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability is probably very borderline for this; but I don't think there's a chance of it being deleted at AfD, so not going to waste time trying. As for the rest, "Then haven't you conceded that the data on the website is relevant for inclusion?" - no. A topic can be notable, without us having to cover every single detail of it (see WP:TMI). The existing tables were indeed a major violation of NOTSTATS (as well as making the page excessively large and slow to load. And well I have no qualms with standing up for principles of what kind of thing we should have (is it not simpler for interested persons to simply go get this information on the publisher's website - where, bonus, it will always be up to date?), at least when they seem to be rather straightforward like here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Txikon has attempted to restore the dispute content, again (they seem to be the same editor as one of the IPs, given the match of edited articles, lack of talk page use, etc... [also original creator of the statscruft tables, [22]]), without even the courtesy of an edit summary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

He just doesn't know when to quit it seems. HawkAussie (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont see why the content, the amount of which as been constant through the years (and not grown), would need to be deleted per WP:NOTSTATS. The push should be to provide the article with more prose than to delete content. Dentren | ^Talk 11:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The push should be to figure out which stats are relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and which ones are needless case studies. The borderline notability of the article subject means it is already hard enough to find secondary sources which specifically talk about this, let alone which analyse the statistics in a meaningful way for us to include anything other than the main ranking. FWIW, look at Elo ratings and at the official FIFA rankings and you'll see there's no precedent for this kind of NOTSTATS/FANCRUFT-table farm. Plus there's been pretty much consensus to remove it so although consensus can change you're quite a bit late to the party... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to remove most of the statistical tables. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Should most of the statistical tables in the World Football Elo Ratings article be:

Option A: removed? (see for ex. Special:Permalink/1017750571)
Option B: kept? (ex. Special:Permalink/1017705777)
Option C: keep one such table, but moved further down into the article body? (something like Special:Permalink/1018149697?)

Uninvolved participants should of course take the context of the immediately preceding into mind for further background on the issue. 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Option C was added 21:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Option A per my previous reasoning (NOTSTATS, no secondary sources, ...) Since this is proving to be intractable; starting a formal RfC on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify: I don't have an objection to C per se; but as regards the main issue here (which is WP:INDISCRIMINATE/etc) it is basically the same as A; and my opinion is that since it's a minor layout issue it can be fixed outside of the scope of the RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A as per the above discussion, it's the preferred option. Option B fails WP:NOTSTATS and is WP:OR as the additional content is mostly unreferenced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A: Remove - we aren't here to be a database. A variety of reasons not to have those tables, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:OR and quite frankly it doesn't really give the reader any real help as to what the Elo system is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A, easily. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and other arguments brought above. 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs)
Option A, per reasons above. Kante4 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A per Nehme1499. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A, no matter how much I like the content, it is not what Wikipedia is for (INDISCRIMINATE, NOTSTATS, etc), and in many cases it's also OR. Some of the more relevant tables could possibly be converted to a short line of prose mentioning the top 1-3 of the particular statistic. – Elisson • T • C • 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Option C: A (one) table of examples like this helps elucidate the meaning and usage of these ratings, but it should be done as if it's an infobox and be put into the article lead. Rather, move it lower into the article body with the explanatory material. Just make sure it's clearly dated, so that if it is not updated immediately when these ratings change it will not be giving incorrect information, but information that was correct for the indicated timeframe. Hell, we could even intentionally use ratings from a long time ago, as long as we were clear about it; it would still be illustrative. @RandomCanadian, Lee Vilenski, Nehme1499, Kante4, Microwave Anarchist, and Johan Elisson: pinging previous !voters who commented before Option C appeared. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC); revised. 23:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: If you look on the permalink under option A you'd see there's still a table with the basic info (here in case it somehow messed up); and that it is dated; and in fact it's even on a template so it can be easily updated once in a while. You might have missed the "most" (not "all") in the RfC statement? Also compare the layout at FIFA World Rankings. Of course if you have suggestions about improving the current layout of the remaining table, that can be boldly fixed outside the RfC since that was not within the scope of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I see those tables. I'm specifically suggesting that the one presently positioned and looking like an infobox, with icons and real data, would be (elsewhere in the article) in and of itself useful, as a typical example of what these codes might be used for. It should just not be masquerading as an infobox in the lead. If people don't like this option, that's fine, they can say so. But it's not cool to try to censor away the option even been discussed, as it seems two editors attempted to do. No one "owns" RfCs (most especially ones that were posted anonymously to begin with). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: FWIW, should Option C gain no traction, then I would support option A, because we absolutely should not have a pseudo-infobox there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Then I might have (being involved in this and thinking it was clear) misworded the RfC statement. The difference between option A and option B was not having no tables in the article at all. Option B was this mess (which a user recently tried to put back in, claiming there was no clear consensus to remove it) while option A was, de facto, keeping a ranking table (reduced from the top 100 in option B, and no matter where it is actually located). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Right. I've clarified C to be specific that it means ONE table. I had not noticed that B had include a whole forest of them, which is obviously excessive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
So basically C = A (article as it is right now) but move the ranking table (which is still there in A) elsewhere? As I said that's a layout issue which I'd encourage a bold fix to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry if I'm being scatter-brained or confusing, and maybe a bit overreactive to boot. I just received word of a death in the family this morning, so my mind's not entirely on this stuff. I think I'll log off for a while. (It was an uncle I wasn't super-close with – aerospace and automotive artist Mark McCandlish, who's done many a magazine cover, and who really should have had an article here by now. But I knew him well enough that it's affecting me a bit.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Option A per the above discussion. Sea Ane (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Option B. The amount of statistic has been stable over the years. What the article needs is more prose to accopany the statistics and, of course references. If no references for that statistics can be found then it should be deleted, but no before. Dentren | ^Talk 07:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Option C Version B is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no objection to A, but feel the table should be in body of article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Gavril Serfözö

Hi. Please can anyone help the bio for Gavril Serfözö? Romanian footballer, played at the 1952 Summer Olympics. A recent edit from another user claims he died in 2002, but no sources have been presented. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find any sources online confirming whether he's alive or dead. The comments here suggest he's alive, but that doesn't pass WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for taking a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Language links not working

I've noticed that for a number of French women's football articles, there is an issue with the link in the Languages section on the LHS of the page. Instead of going to the article in fr.wiki, the French link is instead sending me to the non-existent page fr:Nîmes Métropole Gard- have checked and Wikidata has the correct French language page connected to it. Articles I've noticed this on are Division 1 Féminine and all the teams in that division (e.g. GPSO 92 Issy, Paris Saint-Germain Féminine). I assume a template or category is causing the issue, anyone got any ideas on how to fix? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Try this: [23]. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it would be something simple, just couldn't spot it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to be a bit careful with ILL links, if you don't put [[: it'll generate like a wikidata link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I also remember encountering this issue with French articles; I always assumed it was a problem on Wikidata's side. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RM

Hello. Could you please put your opinions at this RM? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please list with the other discussions at WP:FOOTYDEL, rather than posting here. Giant Snowman 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Rorschach test

Any guesses as to the contents of the Roslyn-Wakari AFC logo? Hack (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

According to their article, it’s a horse’s head. Guess that’s the mouth on the right?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the logo to a clearer version. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

David Smith referee

By any chance do we have an article on this ref? [24] [25]. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like we do. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a lot online, but thought he might pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)