Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 145

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 140

←

Archive 143

→

Roundglass Punjab

Hi! I was hoping for some admin help here. We have this article for Roundglass Punjab, an Indian club which plays in the I-League. This club is actually the continuation of Punjab FC and Minerva Punjab after the club was sold to new owners in 2020. Recently we had some confusion because a Minerva Academy FC is playing in the Punjab Super League, a local state league. The reason for this confusion is because when Roundglass/Minerva Punjab first were promoted to the I-League, they were known as Minerva Academy before rebranding to Minerva Punjab. Finally, the rebranded again to Punjab FC before being bought and named Roundglass Punjab. I know, that is a lot, but the point is that this is the same club that was promoted to the I-League and even won it a few seasons ago. The new Minerva Academy is either a new club or a continuation of the old academy... either way, it isn't notable as it has never played in a national level tournament. The one that did, is now Roundglass.

Because of this confusion, we had some weird moves and redirects at Minerva Academy FC, Minerva Punjab FC, Punjab FC, and Roundglass Punjab. Roundglass Punjab is a "new page" created by User:J Football on July 6 while the others, including the old article history, is now on Minerva Academy FC. Is there a way we could combine these and have them all go to RoundGlass Punjab FC, which is the actual name of the club? Let me know if there are any questions. Cheers! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Striking this as I have started a move request here. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Mystery man

Hi, does anyone have any idea who this is? The uploader claims that it's Jason Wilcox, but it was recently removed from Wilcox's article as it isn't actually him. The initials 'SMC' are visible on the jacket, presumably his surname starts with 'Mc'? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Seems to be Scot McAllister, a physiotherapist at Manchester City. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Scott Arfield

can someone add his goals against trinidad to his list of goals scored. this shit is too advanced for my brain to handle.Muur (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it was an official match. Appears to just be a training match per link. The Canadian Soccer Association didn't list it as an official match link RedPatch (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why...Appears to be a full 90-minute exhibition. Maybe we can get some more opinions on this to see if it should count or not. If yes, here would be the table:

Scores and results list Canada's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Arfield goal.

List of international goals scored by Scott Arfield
No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition
1	7 July 2017	Red Bull Arena, Harrison, United States	French Guiana	2–0	4–2	2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup
2	10 June 2019	Titan Stadium, Fullerton, United States	Trinidad and Tobago	1–0	2–0	Friendly
3	10 June 2019	Titan Stadium, Fullerton, United States	Trinidad and Tobago	2–0	2–0	Friendly
4	15 June 2019	Rose Bowl, Pasadena, United States	Martinique	4–0	4–0	2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup

RedPatch (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to fix the table above based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#International. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway don't list the game, and they usually do list all full A friendlies. --SuperJew (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway isn't that great in my experience regarding international football. NFT list the game (as unofficial, as with the other two goals he scored weirdly). I usually use NFT, and sum "Fifa matches" with "Non Fifa matches", as NFT don't really explain why certain games are unofficial (and don't even explicitly say which ones are unofficial). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think NFT lists his other two games were he scored as unofficial because Martinique and French Guinea are not official FIFA members (although they are Concacaf members and the goals were scored in an official tournament). I feel the best source would be the Canadian Soccer Association page. It's always up-to-date and if they say 19/2, then I think we should go with that. RedPatch (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

well people like Romelu Lukaku and Adnan Januzaj include stats from "non fifa" matches. like that other guy said, the United States are about to play a non fifa team on july 16th. should those caps and whoever scores in that gold cup match not count? like mentioned on other player's pages just because FIFA decide "not to count it" doesnt mean it didnt happen. if these should be removed, them lukaku should lose three goals and one appearance.Muur (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Difference though is that Canada itself doesn't consider it a match, but they consider those Gold Cup ones to count. RedPatch (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

weird thing for them to do, but fair I guess.Muur (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

joe hart

its been mention on his talk page before and I guess hasn't been resolved, but nearly the entire page just talks about errors. his entire page is unfairly bullying him, its like 99% "he made this error and that error" and some of them dont even seem like they should be listed at all. whoever has edited this page has a massive hate boner for him.Muur (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and remove. Giant Snowman 13:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Luke Shaw

Could someone undo the live updates at Luke Shaw? I'm on three reverts. Apparently he scored a goal or something :-) Mattythewhite (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've restored to the last sound version. Eagleash (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel your pain Mattythewhite. #2006NeverForget 🇦🇺 --SuperJew (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

:) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Article request: England–Italy football rivalry

It would be a good idea to have an article on England–Italy football rivalry with the upcoming UEFA Euro 2020 Final.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.59.225 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

not really a rivalryMuur (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

One game does not a rivalry make. --SuperJew (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh? There's no rivalry there. It's not like our rivalry with the Germans, scots or argentines. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There's absolutely no football rivalry between England and Italy. "Rivalry" does not mean "they happen to have played each other a few times" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The BBC describe them as "arch rivals" and "fierce rivals" here. The Guardian have a detailed article here, The Mirror here. Battle of Highbury. Heysel Stadium disaster. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are there any articles about the supposed-rivalry that aren't a build-up to an upcoming game? Before today I wouldn't have even considered there being a rivalry between the teams and had never heard of the Battle of Highbury. Spike 'em (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Haysel incident had very little effect on the national sides. There's a better case for a Liverpool F.C.–Juventus F.C. rivalry page here than what has been suggested. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A wider article on English-Italian football could be merited - the English origins of a number of Italian clubs, the old Anglo-Italian Cup etc.? Giant Snowman 12:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Italy's first manager (for longer than a week) was English. England refused to go to World Cup 34 because of the Italians. It also apparently involves Malta. "The history of England v Italy, at all levels, has been littered with controversy and occasional bouts of violence". There's this, amongst a whole raft of incidents involving hooliganism. If not a "rivalry" article as the BBC and The Guardian call it, there's clearly something between the countries and there has been for well over 100 years. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep agreed there's something there. Just as we have a series of articles on political relationships (see e.g. United Kingdom–United States relations), why not a series on football countries that is more than a rivalry? England–Italy football relations? Giant Snowman 14:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Although not as significant as other rivalries, there does seem to be a rivalry between England and Italy. Create the England–Italy football rivalry article if you like. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Adriano (footballer, born September 1974)

So, I have an issue. How do I disambiguate two Brazilian footballers both known as Adriano, both born in September 1974, both forwards? The players in question are Adriano José da Silva and Adriano Gerlin da Silva. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Often, we would resort to dab by position, but they're both forwards. So I have no idea, as there doesn't seem to be a natural disambiguation: they are both Brazilian footballers born in the same month who played as forwards, which rules out all of our normal disambiguators. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't their full names act as natural disambiguators? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:UCRN. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They weren't born on the same day so disambiguate as Adriano (footballer, born 20 September 1974) and Adriano (footballer, born 25 September 1974) and add a hat note at the top of both of there isn't already one because they will be very easily mixed up. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

cant just use the full names like that other guy said?Muur (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly get more hits for the players using their full names than trying to filter to Adriano. Probably because they have such limited careers. Koncorde (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Full names wouldn't be right, because it would be against WP:COMMONNAME. It also is troubling that they're both forwards. Perhaps the exact date of birth works. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you identify where Adriano is the Commonname? Koncorde (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

And to clarify, what I mean is can you demonstrate reliable sources calling them Adriano alone, and were they commonly known as Adriano, such as squad lists / profiles etc as most websites I can find differentiate these players using their full names because they are just simply not that well known by the shortened version. COMMONNAME is there for us to help people find the person or topic in question, it isn't there to justify ambiguous article names differentiated by a bunch of qualifiers, particularly when there isn't a lot of information to back up the significance. Koncorde (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In this situation, full names is fine. Giant Snowman 11:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for input

Could I please get more input at the following discussion? Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, WikiProject Football members, hope you all will be fine. I am here to ask a question, as I am interested to join this legendary WikiProject. I have been a football fan for a long time, and I have created various templates and edited various articles related to Football, I have been editing them for more than four months. Some days ago, I came to know about this WikiProject, and wanted to join in, however we have to display our national team, though I am from Pakistan, and our football team hasn't been in a single edition of FIFA World Cup and AFC, and the teams I support are Belgium, Italy and Germany. So I can use these on the National Team Support(s) rather than mine? Cheers Tahaaleem ^Talk 08:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

youre supposed to sign up somewhere? I havent done that.Muur (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Medals in infobox

With the recent culmination of the Copa America and the Euros, I have noticed a number of editors adding 'winner' medals to the infobox of players, using the medaltemplate parameter. I am unaware of any consensus that this should happen, and if it should, any consensus/guidance on what should and should not be included. Obviously some players who have won dozens of cups and trophies would have a swollen infobox and it seems impractical to repeat in the infobox what is already adequately displayed in the 'Honours' section? Giant Snowman 13:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

it now appears that @Flix11: is abusing rollback - here and here - to restore the medals. Can somebody have a word before they end up blocked for abuse of tools? Giant Snowman 14:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Abusing? It was you who erase without a valid reason ("not needed"). And if you want to erase, erase from all pages (e.g. Ronaldo, Pogba). Do you have beef with those two or what? Do not think you as a senior Wikipedian makes you infallible. Flix11 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and yes, something not being needed is a valid reason. Do not try and justify your abuse of the tools. I suggest you apologise for the mis-use before I escalate matters. Giant Snowman 14:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This certainly needs a discussion on whether we should be using medal templates or not. For footballers, I've generally only seen them used for the Olympics- which do actually award gold, silver and bronze medals, whereas the Euros do not (and there is no confirmed 3rd place anyway, as they don't have a third-placed playoff). Personally, as football article uses honours sections, I don't believe their needed. In other sports, where they don't use honours sections, they're a good visual representation, but they seem like duplicates for footballers. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is my view - I can see there being a case for Olympic medals being included (although personally still not keen on the idea), but no use/benefit to any other competition? Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"which do actually award gold, silver and bronze medals, whereas the Euros do not" - they clearly do, because anyone watching TV last night will have seen the England players being presented with silver medals (and most of them immediately taking them off :-D) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think what Joseph was saying - and apologies if not - was that athletes at the Olympics compete purely for the medal. At the Euros, they compete for the trophy, and get a medal if they win. Those are not the same. You will read about 3 x Gold Olympic medal winning footballers, you will not read about 3 x Gold World Cup medal winning footballers will you? Giant Snowman 15:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was only for Olympic football. Don't know why other stuff is added. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Using the medal template in the infobox for international honours seems perfectly reasonable. Besides, our own player MoS also uses medals in the infobox, so I would refrain from removing them until we find a consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think what Joseph was saying - and apologies if not - was that athletes at the Olympics compete purely for the medal. Yes this was my main point. Along with the fact that the Euros doesn't even have a 3rd place. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is the discussion agreeing to add non-Olympic medals to the MOS? Giant Snowman 16:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Has there been a proper discussion/consensus regarding the use of the medal table in infoboxes before? The usage seems to vary quite a bit, I recall even seeing some articles using the medal section for club honours. The parameter was added to {{Infobox football biography}} in January 2009, with the Olympian Reinhard Lauck in mind. I wouldn't be opposed to limiting the usage of this parameter to medals earned at multi-sport events. The "honours" heading could also be changed if necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any previous discussion, but that's not to say there hasn't been one. However, we're having one now, and I'm happy to agree that medals should be limited to multi sport events, such as Olympics or Asian Games etc.? Giant Snowman 08:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

So there is consensus for only including medals if they are from a multi-sport tournament such as Olympics? Giant Snowman 21:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean to not include medals unless from multi-sport tournaments? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - clarified. Giant Snowman 10:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion it doesn't make sense to add a medal to someone who won the Mediterranean Games, but not to someone who won the World Cup. Either we include all international competitions or none at all; adding medals only to those who were awarded one at a multi-sport event is a bit arbitrary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the two options as I see them are - either limit them to Olympics only, or don't have them at all. Giant Snowman 13:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If the medal template is limited to the Olympics only for other sports, then it should be the case here as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads-up on this topic, an IP editor has today added a bronze medal field for the 2020+1 Euros for Spanish players (only 2 so far, see Unai Simón), quoting an official UEFA document which does state "Forty gold medals are presented to the winning team and 40 silver medals to the runner-up. 40 bronze medals are presented to the defeated semi-finalists." However it was for the 2012 tournament rather than 2020+1. Doesn't really come into the 'multi-sport only' debate, clearly football only, but clearly something that may be added to further articles and which, to be fair, does have a decent reference to support it. I haven't gone into every article of every relevant player, but I have noticed Andrey Arshavin has it from 2008 as well, Hugo Almeida does from 2012, Mats Hummels has one from that year but NOT from 2016, so worth looking into whethere they are to stay or go. Crowsus (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Two loans in a row?

I forgot what consensus was regarding someone being re-loaned to the same club. Lorenzo Pirola was sent on loan to Monza from Inter ahead of the 2020–21 season. He returned back to Inter on 1 July 2021 as the loan didn't include an option to buy. Two weeks later (today, 14 July), Pirola returned to Monza on loan. Should the loan(s) be represented under one or two spells in the infobox? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Two separate spells in your example, as he returned to the parent club in between. Giant Snowman 18:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, on a similar situation – Lionel Messi will reportedly sign a new contract with FC Barcelona according to Fabrizio Romano. When he does re-sign with Barcelona, should we re-open his Barcelona spell or open a new one? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Messi I would leave as one spell. It had been reported that their contract negotiations were close and they were just putting the finishing touches since the contract ended. RedPatch (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking though, Messi has been out of contract since 1 July. To me that makes it a new spell if he re-signs. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No, for players who re-signed with a club in the same transfer window (not loan), we treat it as one spell. Giant Snowman 21:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

So no real reason for this distinction between loan and permanent contract? --SuperJew (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

the reason is because he joined no club in-between. it was Barca > Barca during the same window. In this instance it's Inter > Monza > Inter in regards to player registration.Muur (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense, I agree. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Australian footballers

Since Australian football exists, I do think that Australian footballers' description should be as follows

Name Surname is an Australian soccer player who plays for X club

Thus, we can avoid confusions between Australian soccer players and Australian Australian football players Dr Salvus 21:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends entirely on context. Some Australians who play association football will be known as footballers because they've played most, if not all of their career in Europe. Others will be known as soccer players because they've played most of their career in Australia or the USA. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant naming convention is WP:NCFIA. Hack (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As Hack said, location of where they play is irrelevant. Alphonso Davies plays for Bayern Munich, but is listed as "soccer player" not "footballer" because he is Canadian. RedPatch (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RedPatch. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. I would instinctively thing that "Australian footballer" means someone that plays Aussie Rules, should be Australian soccer, as that's what they call it in Australia, which is the country they play for/are associated with in this example. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - just as I would not want to see an English person playing in MLS being called a 'soccer player'. Giant Snowman 15:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree GS, but there will be occasions where an English person has no real reason to be called a footballer over a soccer player. I would not want to see a Scottish person who has played their entire club career in the UK called a soccer player but we have Scott Arfield whose dad just happened to be born in Canada. He should really be described as either a "Scottish-born Canadian association footballer" or as just a footballer and bringing his national identity into it later in the lead. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have amended the Arfield wording to bring it in-line with standard wording for players born and raised in one country but who represent another through parentage. Giant Snowman 10:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the wording "Scottish-born Canadian" should never be used. Best to omit the nationality and explain further down in the lead (as you said). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I knew there had been talk about it before but couldn't remember which was correct. Thanks both, I shall remember next time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA once again

It's happened again, this time I spotted some of you were "offered" a goat for what the description said. I won't take that. On the plus point I am glad a handful of our talk pages are protected on Meta as well. Thankfully for Joseph2302, he'd left you alone this time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I should think Josh Brownhill and James Tarkowski should be protected once I'm editing here already. Apart from Nfc123, other edits are vandal and revert repetitions within two months. Ta, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Also including James Madison to the list as multi IP's have changed the current club to Arsenal without any official confirmation at present. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Wow, Arsenal must be desperate if their signing a former US presidents who has also been dead for 185 years. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A reliable presence in the box. Not an ounce of fat on him. Strong personality. A known name for American fans. Crowsus (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Iggy, I don't think mentioning the LTA here repeatedly helps with WP:DENY. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, agree - hard as it might be, simply ignore any jibes, and revert and report/block. Giant Snowman 17:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I will no longer mention the LTA here anymore as I do notice the same thing happens to some of you more easily now from their contributions and precise edit summary and won't question about that here. Thanks to Robby.is.on for that advice.

James Maddison - oops, common spelling error, should not be confused as both articles clearly say at the top. Sorry for the confusion folks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

TJ Eyoma

I wanted to ask this a while back, but Mattythewhite moved Timothy Eyoma to TJ Eyoma citing COMMONNAME, without a move request and I considered it odd at the time, because I found it to be 50/50 each, between TJ or Timothy in google searches. So I really can't see why it should be moved without a move request. I wanted to throw this out there to the community here on what they feel the correct name should be. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no view on the specific case, but WP:RMUM covers both Matty's bold move and your objection to it. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Did you look at the talk page there? You can see I disagreed with the move. I don't revert moves it's such a fiddly thing to do, I still would like to revert know! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I've seen the talk page, and it still fits within the bounds of the RMUM process. At the time Matty made a bold move in good faith there were no previous discussions on page name, so your choices are to revert it back to the previous title and let him request a contested move, or make an RM yourself back to the old title. As per RMUM, not all moves require a formal request process. Spike 'em (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Free transfer departures in season articles

Hello. On 1 July 2021, Kays Ruiz-Atil left Paris Saint-Germain F.C. — his contract expired that day. On 12 July, he joined FC Barcelona B. In the "transfers" section of 2021–22 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season, should we put the date he left Paris Saint-Germain or the date he joined Barcelona B? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Both. This is the way I've displayed released players on 2021–22 A.C. Monza season. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The date he left PSG - the article is relevant to movements relevant to PSG. --SuperJew (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A loan return is not a transfer, that's just bizarre! You can have a look at 2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season#Transfers, that's how I feel it should be on a season page. Govvy (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: you do realise that is not the point of the question asked by Paul Vaurie, right? --SuperJew (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Of course I can see that, I am saying the handling of transfers in those season pages are a shit show and pointing one I like!

Govvy (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Govvy: Glad you can see it. As it is irrelevant, it would be preferable not to bring it up in this section but rather in a new section if you wish to discuss it. Also, the fact that you personally think the transfers should be a certain way, does not mean that is objectively the correct way and an other way is a "shit show", so please don't make such claims. --SuperJew (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We should put the date he left the club. The PSG transfers section is about when a player joined or left the club. If I understand correctly, he left the club on the expiration of his contract on 30 June and then joined Barcelona as a free agent? Robby.is.on (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Robby.is.on. In the transfers out section, we should put the last date they were contracted to the club they were leaving, which for contract expiries is normally 30 June. In the transfers in section, we put the first date they were contracted to his new club, which is whatever it is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If they were released to no club, it should be released, even if they join a club in the future. So Ruiz-Atil was released, and date should be 1 July. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think even if he was released to no club, Barcelona B should still be there. Perhaps we should leave a note? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a note seems fine, as in 2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season#Transfers. I don't like how many season articles get updated to say that players transferred from X to Y, when they were actually released by X and then later signed for Y (e.g. on 2021–22 Norwich City F.C. season#Transfers out). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Why have a note? How is it relevant to PSG that Ruiz-Atil joined Barca B 2 months after the announcement that he left PSG (almost 2 weeks after the actual technical expiration of his contract)? For how long after a player left when he signs for a new club should we have notes? If he joins a week later? A month later? A year later? --SuperJew (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for a note. If club X sold a player to club Y then obviously that needs mentioning as who they sold him to is relevant to club X. But if a player left club X simply because his contract expired and they didn't feel the need to keep him and he next pitched up at club Z five months later, it isn't relevant to club X that he subsequently joined club Z. The only thing that is relevant to club X is that he left them....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The note is only relevant in the same transfer window, when a window closes, there shouldn't be any note. Govvy (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally agree with Govvy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree: as long as the player joined another club within the same transfer window, a note can be added. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: What do you think of the note I added? Should we include a flagicon in the note? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The note looks good. Either we keep flagicons in both the table and the note(s), or none at all. By the way, I would remove the French flagicons, and reformat the player squad table similarly to this (using {{Efs player}}), as the current table has a lot of OR (specific positions such as DM and SS) and information which isn't really relevant to the 2021–22 season (such as transfer fee, etc.). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't really see an issue with the table. Just asking, why should we remove the French flags, exactly? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, at the end of the season, another table (similar to the one you suggested) is made. See this for example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the first table? The second one covers the squad in a more appropriate manner already. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi

I've opened a discussion regarding Berardi's loan status from Juventus between 2013 and 2015; further input would be appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Lewis O'Brien September 2018.jpg

This image is not, despite the name, of Lewis O'Brien (footballer); it is of Jim O'Brien (footballer, born 1987). Any idea how we can rename it? Giant Snowman 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved to File:Jim O'Brien September 2018.jpg at Commons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In case you need it in future: on Commons, there's a move button. Which tags the article to be moved, and you have to specify one the Commons move criteria (blatantly incorrect name is one of the criteria). And then someone with file mover rights can move it. Or you can just ask someone with file mover rights on Commons and cut the bureaucracy out. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Giant Snowman 10:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We learn something new everyday GiantSnowman. I've been told not so long ago that whenever I made an edit using an IP address while not logging in, the address gets removed by one of our helpful admins. I'm guessing the same thing happened to you GiantSnowman when reverting on your Commons talk page with the summary "DENY", the user name/IP address got removed but I think it was you who did that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have file mover rights on Commons - if anyone needs something for the project, welcome to ping me or write on my talk page (either on Wiki or Commons) :) Regardless, the files are moved pretty quickly usually ;) --SuperJew (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite, Joseph2302, and SuperJew: further assistance needed please, because @Aderiqueza: keeps on adding the image even though it is the wrong person. Giant Snowman 17:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Seems Aderiqueza has seen and acknowledged the correction. I belive this was a mistake done in good faith of a new user who didn't understand the whole process of reverting etc. --SuperJew (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer - my main concern was that the file they were re-adding was still labelled as Lewis... Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: you have to request an IP address to be removed from the page history, it doesn't happen automatically. Giant Snowman 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something for me to remember for next time an accident like this happens to me again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Loan returns

Should we add "loan returns" for this section? Is there a difference between players coming back from loan and going back to their parent clubs? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, returning from a loan is not a transfer, nor an agreement, nor a contract, it's simply returning from loan!! Govvy (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't get the wrong season a lot of the time, loans return at the end of a season, not the following season unless otherwise! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add them (to both seasons), but at this point maybe change the section to "Player movements". For example, Hakimi not being an Inter player anymore is definitely relevant information. To me, the purpose of the "transfer/player movement" tables is to show the difference in the first-team squad between the previous and current season, whether the player left on a permanent transfer, free transfer, Bosman ruling, return from loan, whatever. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme on this one. It isn't a transfer but it is definitely "player movement" or a "squad change". If anything, my main gripe with these sections is adding academy moves when the article is about the senior team. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends if the academy player is integrated into the main team. Obviously, someone who moves to the club just to play youth football for them that season shouldn't be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of changing the section to "Player movements". That's not clear to the average reader. To address your example, the fact that Hakimi is not an Inter player any more should be obvious from the fact that he's not listed in the squad and that the end date of his loan should be made clear on the season article for the relevant season. That's why loan returns don't need listing at all: the end date is clearly specified at the start, and if any changes are made, we modify the table to match. – Pee Jay 16:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, Hakimi was a bad example as he was a permanent transfer to Inter (I thought he was on loan). I'll use Diogo Dalot to AC Milan as an example. Not everyone will want to read the previous seasons, or the player article. Especially since, not everyone knows a priori that Dalot was a Milan player in the first place in 2020–21. Someone reading the 2021–22 season page will find it usefull to know that Dalot, who was a Milan player the previous season, isn't one anymore (the same way Hakan Çalhanoğlu, who played for Milan in 2020–21, won't play for them anymore in 2021–22). Whether the guy won't play anymore due to returning back from loan to the parent club, or due to his contract having expired, or due to having been sent on loan, or being sold permanently, or whatever, isn't really that relevant. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the fact that a certain player was only on loan at a club is not something we could expect every reader to know, but if a reader is well-versed enough to know Calhanoglu was with Milan last year, it stands to reason they might check the previous season's article for an explanation for why he's not there any more. Of course, that's not a problem here because his free transfer to Inter is rightfully mentioned in the 2021-22 Milan season article, as he only moved to Inter at the end of his contract on 1 July. – Pee Jay 16:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but we don't only make season articles for globally-recognized teams with globally-recognized players. Sometimes we deal with guys like Davide Frattesi, one of Monza's key players in 2020–21, who returned from loan to Sassuolo. Not everyone knows about Monza's players, or about Davide Frattesi, but if they wanted to exclusively read about Monza's 2021–22 season, knowing that Frattesi (who was at Monza the previous season) isn't there anymore is relevant information. It's not a good assumption for us to make that the average user will also automatically want to view the previous season to see if someone had returned from loan. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. If a reader wants to read about Monza's 2021-22 season in isolation, why would the fact that a player from the previous season isn't there any more be at all relevant? – Pee Jay 21:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a change in the roster that impacts the 2021–22 season. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes are not relevant with respect to just one season though. I'll repeat, if someone wants to read about the 2021-22 Monza season in isolation, why would the fact a player from 2020-21 isn't there any more be of any concern? – Pee Jay 06:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not loan returns should be included, the term 'player movements' is ridiculous as this is probably the first time I have ever seen it used. We should be using clear, standard English rather than making up terms for this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I might be thinking of the Italian "movimenti di mercato". I don't know the exact English equivalent. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what are your opinions? Should we have loan returns (both ways, to and from clubs) in season articles? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I don't know why you want to put last seasons loans in the following season, when they have nothing to do with that season. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is allergic to Transfermarkt, but even they include end of loans in the following season's transfers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just a continental thing. I've never seen it anywhere other than continental Europe, but especially Italy and apparently Germany. – Pee Jay 17:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's get a consensus, it seems enough arguments have been put forward (imo). Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi position as Winger - being accused of vandalism by GiantSnowman and Nehme 1499

Kindly have a look at the page of the Italian footballer Domenico Berardi, where I added a source justifying that this footballer plays as a Winger, while two users, namely GiantSnowman and Nehme 1499 have removed the source repeatedly, without providing any solid argument or information demonstrating that the player is actually not a Winger, while they are also accusing me of vandalism. This is a true abuse towards me and not a good service for Wikipedia by these people. You should be able to show and provide facts and sources, not threaten other users --93.151.145.8 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and editing against consensus - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 144#Domenico Berardi where it was agreed to list Berardi only as 'forward'. Giant Snowman 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro winning countries

We need more people and their opinions at Talk:UEFA European Championship#National teams in the summary table / conclusion voting to settle those things with Yugoslavia / Czechoslovakia / USSR / Serbia / Russia once and for all, so any opinion would be appreciated. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Only the real and true historic winners should be mentioned at least until the so-called "heir's countries" will be able to win a title. For instance, it is not correct to award to Serbia the results obtained by Yugoslavia which was a different State and a different political entity.--Bergenoslo (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You say it's not correct to credit Serbia with Yugoslavia's victories, but that's what UEFA and FIFA have done. Please read the discussion linked above before commenting further. – Pee Jay 22:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Milan, AC Milan, Milan

This discussion has been going on for years (2018, 2020, 2021), and consensus has yet to be established. I propose the following:

Use AC Milan (without dots) in the first mention (so, in the infobox, the first mention in the lead, and the first mention in the body of the article)
Use Milan after AC Milan has already been used once
Never use A.C. Milan (with dots), as it just looks clunky

Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Milan is just the British language grammatical choice for abbreviations. It isn't usually used either in the Italian, or in reliable sources, so is purely a grammatical choice. I can understand in the main club article retaining A.C. Milan for the article name (as a British definition of the subject), but from that point onwards AC Milan / Milan should be interchangeable. For players / other articles so long as AC Milan diverts to A.C. Milan then I see no issue standardising. However I have to say I am not convinced piping to "Milan" only is appropriate for infobox like current team etc without having first established the club is in fact A.C. Milan per Ciprian Tătărușanu lede for example. Koncorde (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A.C. is as commonly used in English as AC is. There is no standard. Personally, I would advocate for using AC and replicating that with FC instead of F.C., SC instead of S.C. etc, etc across all football articles but I doubt that's ever going to happen. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A.C. really isn't used as much. I think you would struggle to find A.C. being used consistently anywhere - and then likely only in English language sites. My books all use AC, and a web search isn't bringing back much specifically with A.C. and in fact most references to A.C. Milan are based on circling back to the wikipedia article. I think the abbreviation mark should remain for article titles to indicate that they indicate individual words - but beyond that initial spelling out of the terms we can conform to a shortened version. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) For Tătărușanu I would write who plays as a goalkeeper for Serie A club AC Milan, and in the infobox I would display the club as "AC Milan". However, in the second paragraph of the lead, I would keep In September 2020, Tătărușanu transferred back to Italy and signed for Milan, as the use of "AC Milan" has already been established. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, the club article at 'A.C.' is correct, but common usage of 'AC' and/or 'Milan' is fine - as long as article is consistent. Giant Snowman 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I would also extend it to the Career Stats section table to use AC RedPatch (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've created WP:ACMILAN. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you've written at WP:ACMILAN, and would add section headings and image captions to the list of where AC Milan should be used. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

True. I've amended the section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ridiculous that we've decided to refer to the club without dots in prose when the article is located at A.C. Milan? We really should just get rid of dots wholesale. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that "AC Milan" isn't pronounced "Ack Milan", or that "Arsenal FC" isn't pronounced "Arsenal Fuck". – Pee Jay 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are some English fans who pronounce it exactly "Arsenal, Fuck" ;) --SuperJew (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WP:ACMILAN created by Nehme1499, wouldn't it be better to have a wider wording to include other clubs too? --SuperJew (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Such as...? Giant Snowman 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Inter Milan definitely needs the same consensus. The only issue is that with Inter we are dealing with three names: Internazionale, Inter Milan, and Inter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Such as any German name which was discussed here recently that are supposed to be full name on first appearance, or clubs with a country or club name in them, such as Kuwait SC, Qatar SC, or Sydney FC, or clubs with a name of a much more famous club like Barcelona de Ecuador. --SuperJew (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the German clubs naming convention is already covered by WP:KARLSRUHER. We definitely need a guideline for Swedish names (for example, Trelleborgs FF is shortened to Trelleborg without the S, for some Swedish grammar convention). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need different naming conventions - same principle - use full name on first appearance, and later can use shortened version. --SuperJew (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The core concept is the same, but it's not immediately obvious what the full and short names are for specific clubs (in specific countries sometimes). We need to explicitly say that for Swedish clubs, the s is removed from the full name in specific circumstances (someone from Sweden can probably explain better), or that we have to behave in a certain way for German clubs, or for AC Milan. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct regarding the Swedish club names. "Trelleborgs FF" basically translates to "Trelleborg's Football Club", the s at the end of the geographical (or other) name is indicating the possessive form, and thus should be omitted when the name is shortened to "Trelleborg". Similar to "Karlsruher SC" and "Karlsruhe", but a different grammatical construct. In some cases though, the geographical name itself ends in s, and thus shouldn't be removed, e.g. "Västerås SK" but also "Västerås". – Elisson • T • C • 10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem when people just put Milan on its own to represent the club. That's the name of the City with two of the biggest clubs in Europe. I feel it is far more correct to have AC Milan and it's more correct towards WP:COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In Italy, the club you might call AC Milan is far more commonly known as just "Milan" though. I'm not sure what you "feel" enters into it. – Pee Jay 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to chime in, but I support the WP:ACMILAN thing. We should make more shortcuts to established naming consensus like this. It's helpful. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is completely unnecessary and has not received an extended consensus by the way... (4 or 5 people are not a majority and should not be entitled to decide or speak for all the Wikipedia community...) The full name of the club is A.C. Milan, as for instance, the full name of Chelsea is Chelsea F.C. or the full name of Real Madrid is Real Madrid C.F. ; all these names are with the dots and all of them are abbreviated as Chelsea and Real Madrid, not Chelsea FC or Real Madrid CF. A.C. Milan is not different. So there is no need to call the club AC Milan especially knowing that the club is called Milan in its own country, which is Italy. So Wikipedia should not intervene in this matter which seems to be a matter of interest only for some English-speaking users, in addition, there is no relation and no possibility of confusion with the name of the other club of the city which is called (in this order) Internazionale, Inter or Inter Milan. --93.151.145.8 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the articles on FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF (plus Valencia CF, RCD Espanyol, RCD Mallorca, Malaga CF, CA Osasuna and Sevilla FC by the way) are at those destinations, without dots. Plus, English-speaking users are exactly the group to be considered here as it's the English language Wiki. Crowsus (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so you follow my thesis, as the clubs you just cited are then called and spelled Barcelona and Real Madrid on their Wikipedia pages or on the player's boxes and tables, not Barcelona FC or Real Madrid CF.--93.151.145.8 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. The problem we have unfortunately is that the agreed name for the other club is Inter Milan as Inter is too vague and nobody really says Internazionale. Inter Milano would also be better in my own opinion, but it's not a commonly used term in English. But there seems to be no problem with using Dundee and Dundee United on Wikipedia, they don't use Dundee FC (with or without dots!) for the dark blue club even though there is nothing else to call them, and it is also the name of their city which could cause further confusion. So on the same basis I don't see any issue with using simply Milan and Inter Milan. Crowsus (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

'Dundee' would be the common name for the club in English, which is not the case for (AC) 'Milan'. BBC Sport, for example, will always refer to them as 'AC Milan', at least at the first instance in an article, whilst it will refer to Dundee as 'Dundee' ([1]). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Per Crowsus & MA - but effectively I have no issue if at the first mention of any non-English (or British) clubs we were to use the longer name format such as FC Barcelona for instance. It helps to establish we are not linking to the city article per WP:EASTEREGG. Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is not yet consensus for this proposal from Nehme1499, who by the way has started to modify Milan to AC Milan all over Wikipedia pretending that he got a vast consensus as if a vote among the Wikipedia community has been organized or so... This is not how you should behave. You do not start to impose such a change while only 3 or 4 users have said that it's fine for them. For me, there is no reason to change the current situation and the arguments to support this change are unclear, trivial, and not solid at all. The club is called A.C. Milan for Associazione Calcio Milan, and as we do not write Arsenal FC on Wikipedia but Arsenal, we should not be obliged to write AC Milan as well. It is exactly the same situation, taking also into consideration that the club is called Milan in its country and by UEFA which is the most important football organization in Europe (see UEFA.com website).--Bergenoslo (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: It's probably closer to 7-8 people agreeing, and no one being against. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use the common names used in English (FC Bayern Munich instead of Bayern München is one example). Unfortunately (I say unfortunately because I personally dislike this), people outside of Italy refer to the two "Milano" clubs as "AC Milan" and "Inter Milan", rather than "Milan" and "Inter". Plus, WP:ACMILAN advocates to use "AC" only in the first mention of the club; in subsequent mentions it's perfectly acceptable to only use "Milan". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, to be clear Bergenoslo - the use of Milan only is incorrect per the reliable sources provided on the same pages. See sources such as Sky,ESPN,Transfermarkt,BBC UEFA 1, UEFA 2, The Independent among many others that will use the extended name at least initially in coverage. It makes sense to ensure clarity, and the clarified policy actually strengthens the use of Milan through the rest of the article by establishing its initial usage. Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Image recently added on Martin Braithwaite

I have a feeling the image added today may not be allowed to stay on there as a free image - I searched the image using Google Search and found the image on multiple websites including the Spanish article about him. Views? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion at Commons. Not sure why this is an issue to open on WT:FOOTY too? --SuperJew (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that Struway2, with the reasoning, identifies that as a "clearly copyvio image" removed it just recently. I was thinking that the image is a copyvio but I was wondering if others think likewise. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Uncertain end career date

Hey! For Sandesh Gadkari, the infobox says that he plays for Mumbai which obviously isn't true since the club is now defunct. While I am sure that this is him, I can't seem to find when he last actually played before retiring. What would I do in this case, where we don't know when the player retired or, in other cases, what happened to them at all after leaving the professional leagues? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the information we have. If all we know is that he signed for the 2015–16 season, I would put 2015–2016 as the range. If we know he was still playing in, say, 2017, I would extend the range to 2017. It all depends on the sources we have at hand. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is usually what I do. What would I write then in the career section? That he last played for Mumbai? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest using a question mark in the infobox instead of an uncertain end date. Hack (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, would look odd the question mark but I guess it is the most accurate. Any suggestions for the prose? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Big task for those feeling bored

Organising and subcategorising Category:Association football awards navigational boxes - by country and tournament etc. Giant Snowman 18:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I made a start (instead of studying for theriogenology so should probs get back to that). --SuperJew (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Mural of Marcus Rashford

Project members may be interested to help expand Mural of Marcus Rashford. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the topic at hand that notable? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this would need a separate article. It could be covered in a few sentences of the article on Rashford. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - definitely doesn't merit a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have opened an AFD on it @Another Believer: @Nehme1499: @Joseph2302: @ChrisTheDude:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on the assessment for Afd and posted as such. Google search yields a lot of results for GNG. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Govvy, Thanks! Too often artworks depicting sportspeople are nominated for deletion by sports editors and require "rescuing" by editors more familiar with standards for notable works of art. Not a criticism, just an observation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Rather more editors help out on this project than the WP:ARTS project, and there is a hell of a lot of amazing arts/paintings/sculptures that are not even documented by wikipedia! O well. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Harold Shepherdson could use some attention

This article has been tagged for sourcing issues since 2009. I quickly added his substantial obit from The Independent which could be used to source and expand further. I'm not really a football expert, so I am not going to do more. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record

I believe that this discussion got closed without a resolution. Having just checked the template, it now advises between three different potential layouts for the Competitive record section which does not allow for consistency therefore could we please come to a consensus as to the best way to display this data?

Example 1

Year	Final Tournament							Qualification
Year	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
1930	Did not enter							Was not invited
1934	Quarter finals	2	1	0	1	4	4	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

Example 2

Year	Final Tournament								Qualification
Year	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	Squad	Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
France 1938	Third place	4	2	1	1	12	10	Squad	Qualified automaticlly
Brazil 1950	Runners-up	6	4	1	1	22	6	Squad	Qualified as hosts

Example 3

Year	Location	Final Tournament							Qualification
Year	Location	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
2018	Russia	Group Stage	3	1	1	1	4	4	1st	8	5	3	0	15	5
2022	Qatar	To be determined							1st	0	0	0	0	0	0
2026	Canada Mexico United States	To be determined							To be determined

Draws include knockout matches decided on penalty kicks; correct as of 28 June 2018 after the match against Colombia.

Example 4

FIFA World Cup record										FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	Squad	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
1930	Did not enter									Was not invited
1934	Quarter-finals	6th	2	1	0	1	5	4	Squad	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

Which Example do people prefer? @REDMAN 2019: @SuperJew: @Stevie fae Scotland: @Lee Vilenski:

To throw my two cents in, I like the 4th Example and would argue that MOS:FLAGS actually allows for this. The reason that I feel that this is the best format is that it easily distinguishes the different tournaments without cluttering the table and, as the country that hosted the tournament isn't the primary focus of the table, listing it fully doesn't feel necessary to me but I'd be delighted to hear your opinions and come to some conclusion so that all National Team pages can fall under the same template! Felixsv7 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer Example 4, personally I am a fan of flags in these tables as I think they are a good visual aid but Example 3 just seems to crowded with the country's names in it as well. If people vote overwhelmingly against flags then I'm going for Example 1. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Example 4 as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have zero idea how you can read MOS:FLAG and think that four is ok. If it isn't a primary point of the table, why are we putting flags in? We should never put flags in as a way to state specific information. Specifically "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." There's also "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details", so if you haven't used the flag already in the article, you'd have to state the country name as well. As much as I don't think it matters where it was played in a table like this, if it is important, you can simply write the country out, like so below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Example 5

FIFA World Cup record										FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	Squad	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
Uruguay 1930	Did not enter									Was not invited
Italy 1934	Quarter-finals	6th	2	1	0	1	5	4	Squad	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

MOS:FLAGS mentions that users have a preference to just using the flag in sports statistics. Admittedly it's quite poorly worded but based on the example that is how I understand it. The numbers are actually the key detail in the column, the flag is just extra detail! Felixsv7 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Example 5 is a good compromise as, along with complying with MOS:FLAGS, is also a good wording for the tournaments, as often times we hear the tournaments being referred to as "Italia 90" or "Germany 2006", for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: What is the difference between example 5 and example 2? Anyways I think it is unneccesary to link to the squads page for each tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much I suppose. I don't have much of an interest other than the flags. Felixsv7, that doesn't mean we should have countries replaced by flags. That generally means that we use {{flagathlete}} for long similar tables.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I can understand the issue that perhaps not every user knows every flag, but I do feel they are good to have as it helps with the reading to have some colour and images. Therfore I'd suggest as such:

Example 6

FIFA World Cup record										FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	Position	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
Uruguay 1930	Did not enter								Was not invited
Italy 1934	Quarter-finals	6th	2	1	0	1	5	4	1st	2	2	0	0	8	2

This way we don't have people lose information due to not knowing the flags. Also remove the unneccesary "squads" column. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I still believe that the squads column is pretty useful. It's the only place on the national team article where we can link to those anyway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

To explain why I updated the MOS. The discussion linked above brought about a consensus to update the competitive record section to meet MOS:FLAGS but did not bring about a consensus to remove flagicons or any mention of the location of the tournament. As a result, I offered three examples of how that could be met. The discussion wasn't about whether the squad should be linked or not so I ensured it was still included and I also made sure to include details of how to indicate host nation and champion/runner-up etc. I personally don't see a problem with allowing more than one option for editors but I would have no objection if example 2 (which is identical in substance if not style to example 5) or example 6 were agreed as the favoured way forward. They both meet MOS:FLAGS and both detail who the host nation is/was. I would suggest that the year column be aligned left in option 6 though to keep the flags in line with one another. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the flag alignment. I would also prefer there to be a "white bar" to divide the finals record and the qualification record. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Final option from me (complying with MOS:FLAG this time!) just to rowspan across the Year and Location columns and add the Squad column which was previously just a set of bullet points beneath the Recent Call-ups and is definitely more applicable to this table. The benefit I think this has over Example 6 is that all the years are down a single line, as are the flags, which should make it easier to read - especially for competitions that take place over a couple or more countries. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Example 7

FIFA World Cup										Qualification
Year	Host	Round	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	Squad	Pos.	Pld	W	D	L	F	A
2018	Russia	Group Stage	3	1	1	1	4	4	Squad	1st	8	5	3	0	15	5
2022	Qatar	To be determined								1st	0	0	0	0	0	0
2026	Canada Mexico United States	To be determined								To be determined

Example 7 is exactly the same as example 3 albeit a slightly different style but the substance is the same. I have no objections if that's the preferred format though, all but example four meet MOS:FLAGS so I'm happy whichever. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to MOS

There has been many discussions in the past (1 and 2) about the need to update the Club seasons guideline without result. This has caused many disagreements recently between editors. There are some editors who see the MOS in dire need to be updated. This is a proposal of what an updated guideline that an editor worked on might look like. All suggestions are welcome. Keeping it as it is or leaving it up to the user's discretion are all possible suggestions.:--Sakiv (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what? This has not been updated for 2 years and I am unaware of any discussion suggesting a change? The 'Statistics' section looks awful for a start and has NOTSTATS issues, such as disciplinary records which we do not track, and subs/starts etc. not relevant accordingly. Giant Snowman 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that proposal looks pretty bad. For one thing, we don't need separate sections for transfers in the summer and winter transfer windows. We also probably shouldn't use the collapsible footballbox to list matches, as Wikipedia policy says you shouldn't hide content in collapsible boxes for accessibility purposes. – Pee Jay 15:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I like how you have cherry-picked discussions from 2013 and 2014. More recent discussions – which established a consensus against using the collapsible football box – include this one and this one. The 'Results by matchday' section is also clearly WP:NOTSTATS and the information is already available anyway given that each season article includes a list of the team's results. Agree with GS + PeeJay re- statistics section and transfers. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Their proposal is only a draft and is open to any change. We can start a new draft for what an updated MOS might look like.--Sakiv (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does the MOS need to be entirely overhauled? Giant Snowman 20:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather we had specific notes on what needs changing to the current MOS than creating a new one. Could you outline which parts of the current MOS are unsuitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the transfers should be split by transfer window, and I don't believe a players number of appearances (for outgoing players) or contract expiry date (for incoming players) is relevant, as it doesn't directly affect the season in question. "Aftermath of the season" seems arbitrary, especially include reports on profit made during the season- a casual reader wouldn't care whether they made £3.7 million or £4.1 million in a season. And "Other statistics" would likely just encourage people to add whatever random stats they feel like, violating WP:NOTSTATS.

To me, this seems like WP:NOTBROKEN- I don't see issues with the current MOS, so why do we need to spend lots of effort trying to "fix" it? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Exactly, for example, the format of the matches using tables looks outdated and has not seen significant changes since the inception of the guideline. For example a vast number of articles does not use these tables. Player details look good and so is the transfer section. We can add to the prose for the sake of consistency. Also, hould the transfers section be at the top of the article or at the bottom of the competitions? We may also decide if it is appropriate to place the competitions under main sections or under subsections each within the section called match results or competitions.--Sakiv (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"a vast number of articles does not use these tables" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Player details look good" - see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The tables look outdated? How so? I think they're an elegant way of displaying the relevant information. The collapsible footballbox not only hides important information behind a click that the user probably shouldn't have to make (and isn't even compatible with mobile devices), but also takes up way too much of the page with whitespace with its 100% width setting. It's ugly. – Pee Jay 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A few random thoughts from me:
- I don't see why the contract length is necessary/relevant. All we need to know is that the player joined the club and played in the season in question. We don't need to know how many years he was contracted for. Also, the available information on this is going to be pretty patchy any more than about 15 years back
- Collapsible boxes for matches are horrible, there's nothing wrong with a table
- Results by matchday is stats overload and unnecessary and of course just leads to those endless questions of "what to do when matches are postponed and played weeks/months later"
- I can't see the point of the "Overall competition record" table. Why would we report on the "win %" in something like the FA Cup, a knockout competition?
- Cards again are going to be incredibly hard to source more than a few years back. I know people are probably going to say "well, we can get it for recent/future seasons, so why not show it?", but should we really encourage including a stat which isn't going to be readily available for the majority of seasons to date?
Just my 2p.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what specific information we are actually trying to change here, and more to the point where there is more than one person looking for it. If other articles don't meet this style guide, we should update them to do so. using tables looks outdated and has not seen significant changes since the inception of the guideline - that usually means that tables look fine. If you have a specific table style, I'd be more than willing to weigh in on the pros and cons of the contrasting tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

cards aren't hard to track, soccerbase do it on player's pages. messi] got 6 yellows and 1 red last season for exampleMuur (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

what about players not covered by Soccerbase? Just because stats sites track something doesn't mean we do. Giant Snowman 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: - I doubt Soccerbase could tell us how many cards Man U got in 1984-85, let alone Cardiff City in 1921-22. We shouldn't get too obsessed with stats which are only available for a comparatively small percentage of players/seasons.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Is there a real problem including this information for seasons where the information is available and not including it for seasons which it isn't? You don't have transfers information for the seasons you mentioned above either. --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A note on one specific aspect of the draft guideline linked by @Sakiv:. Linked text in Wikipedia usually has a colour value of #0645AD (see: WP:LINKCOLOR), though for cross-language Wikipedia links, this color value changes to #3366BB. At all times we should promote accessibility, and ensure that everybody can read the encyclopedia, which means, among other things, meeting WCAG 2.1 colour contrast guidelines (see WP:CONTRAST). If we use #0645AD as our benchmark for text colour, the colours chosen in the draft guideline to indicate a win or a loss, as well as for Champions League qualification and relegation, fail the WCAG 2.1 test. If we use #3366BB as our benchmark for text colour, none of the colours chosen in the league table pass the WCAG 2.1 test. I'd say it's better to target the default link colour, #0645AD, as this covers 99.9% of use cases on the English Wikipedia. I'd favour using the colour guide contained in WP:COLOURS to choose appropriate colours for W/L/D, as well as league positions - #E6FFE6 for a win, #FFFFE6 for a draw, #FFE6E6 for a loss. Everything in column two of the colour guide in WP:COLOURS ought to be appropriate, except at hue 240, which fails. Domeditrix (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: We will not disagree on the colors, I agree with your proposal.--Sakiv (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Loans in the currentclub parameter of the infobox

I have question since I did not find anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players: Should we mention the loaning club in the info box like this or should the "on loan from ..." be removed? --Jaellee (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely include the parent club. Giant Snowman 09:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Have I missed something, I have been reverted on Sarpreet Singh article because I undid an IP edit that put loaned from next to current club in the infobox. The fact that he's on loan is already stated in lede, in the article and under senior career now. I can't see the need for it to be with current club as well. I believe that should just be the team the player is playing for.

Then I corrected in the lede another IP edit that had displayed it to say loan is from Bayern Munich instead of Bayern Munich II and removed the loan information again by current club. Only for it to be re-added by Jaellee. I don't want to get into an edit war with them on it but it seems like it's not best practise to me, to have loaned from in current club field when you are having to used break text to display it plus it's displayed in infobox anyway under senior career that's its a loan. Would like others thoughts? — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems while I was writing up my question, Jaellee did at the same time. I appreciate them bring it here also for others thoughts. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've only ever seen articles include the club loaned from in the 'current club' field and that is most sensible in my opinion as they are playing for the loan club but are also under contract to the parent club. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely include the parent club. Giant Snowman 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Pile-on vote for including the parent club :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm obviously in the wrong here so my apologies to Jaellee and I reverted myself. Maybe good to add something to the template page for a football player if possible too.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Current clubs, or clubs at last call-up?

Which clubs should be displayed in the "Players" section of national teams (example), the current clubs (e.g. PSG for Donnarumma) or the clubs at the latest call-up (AC Milan)? I thought that we should be displaying the clubs at the present day (both for the current squad and recent call-ups). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: Pinging involved user. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that as the age on the current date is displayed (rather than the age at call-up), the club at the current date should also be the information shown. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Per what source says, club last call. During the next call the club will be updated.--Island92 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say club at time of call up. Has Donnarumma received a call-up whilst a PSG player? No. Giant Snowman 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say current club. What would we do for "recent call-ups"? Display the club they last played with? When I look at national team rosters, I look at both current and recent to see the "current pool" of players, of which the club would interest me. For the articles like "Euro 2020 team rosters", those absolutely should have team at time of call-up since that's more of a "snapshot" at that point in time, but the national team article to me is an ever-updating page so should have the current team (aka PSG for Donnarumma). RedPatch (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RP. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Felixsv7 that the issue of the club and the age are related. If we decide that we are using the club at time of call up, we should also use the birth date and age2 template to "freeze" the age. --SuperJew (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

But actually Donnarumma who now plays for PSG has not received any call yet. The information given - The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020 - matches with the fact we should report club last call. Island92 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What's your thought on what Felixsv7's concern regarding the current age, and RedPatch's comment? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'current age' template can be amended to stick at the date of call-up. Giant Snowman 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Current clubs. Why would you purposely want to have an encyclopedia with outdated information? Intruder007 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The current age can be easily updated when necessary. What does exactly mean the section named "Current squad"? The last squad called so as to attend a major tournament or friendly match or the current squad of everyday in accordance with which club the player is playing?Island92 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's cool to have the club of the call-up in the pages specific to a tournament such as UEFA Euro 2020 squads. But if you do that in the NT-specific pages, you will only cause confusion, specially because most people that enter that page will assume the clubs are up to date. Intruder007 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but Donnarumma is listed into the table, according to the source provived as AC Milan player because he was playing for AC Milan as he was called to attend Euro 2020 tournament. Island92 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If someone enters the Italy page and reads the roster page, he/she won't assume that the clubs are "according to the club he was playing at the time of the call-up", he/she will assume it's as of today's date because, well, this is an encyclopedia and any encyclopedia worth it's salt will always try to be as up to date as possible. Doing otherwise is dumb. Intruder007 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a contrast, in any case. The information given - The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020 - means Donnarumma wasn't playing for PSG at the time he was called. Putting PSG is simply wrong. I think my thought has been understood about this aspect. I do not go on and I let other user say what they think. Island92 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020" only means you have the 26 players that were called-up, not the clubs and the ages at the moment they were and nobody will assume otherwise unless specifically noted and why should they? It's a matter of using common sense. Intruder007 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Donnarumma was not a PSG player during Euro 2020 and any edit indicating he was is factually incorrect. Giant Snowman 19:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Showing Donnarumma as a PSG player in the Italy NT player section isn't stating that he was one during Euro 2020. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is, given the Italian 'current squad' section says "The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020". Giant Snowman 19:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, who will assume the list of clubs were as they were at the time of the call-up? Nobody is saying Donnarumma was a PSG player at the time of the call-up. What we're saying is that nobody will assume the clubs of the list will be listed as they were at the time of the call-up. Ever. And nobody will unless you add a note explicitly saying that clubs and/or ages are according to the date of the call-up. And if you do that, most people reading the article will think the editors are insane. Intruder007 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

he didnt even sign for PSG until after the tourney... if you list him as a PSG player at Euro 2020 that's wrong. I'd say it's prob fine to change it on Itlay's page itself though. But not Euro 2020.Muur (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Another question here, if we keep clubs and age as per when called-up, should we also not update the caps and goals? --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Caps and goals are updated when the Nation team plays, therefore automatically you have already updated the club the player plays for because he has been called by the Manager to play either a major tournament or friendly match. Island92 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not every call-up is for one specific game. Many times we have call-ups for a tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the call. The most recent call means the most recent club the player plays for to be updated. The main fact is based on the statement above with source. During Euro 2020 Donnarumma was an AC Milan player. Island92 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In the end, it's all a matter of what the use of the "Players" section is. In my opinion, it's much more useful for the average reader to know which "current" PSG players play for the Italy national team, for example. If I were to ask myself "how many PSG players are there currently in the Italy NT?", the Player section would be able to answer my question. It's very unlikely someone will ask themselves "what was the club makeup of the Italy NT during their last friendly played 3 months ago, which was their last game played?" At most, someone will want to know the clubs of players at specific tournaments - indeed, we have those noted in tournament squad pages such as UEFA Euro 2020 squads. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the national team should display the club the player currently plays for. If we keep it this way, we should have disclaimer it represents the players current club. If we decide it should show as the club the player is contracted to when they received their last call-up, then we should have another disclaimer as well clarifying that.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As Ortizesp says, we should anyway have a note clarifying the situation so it won't be misunderstood. I also believe we should display the current updated status (club, age, caps, and goals), as that is the general expecation as I can see from the average Joe editor (I all the time see IPs update a club when a player joins a new club, and have yet to see an IP update back to the club the player was with at time of call-up). --SuperJew (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Current clubs, of course. Kindly remember that a "club" season is officially over on 30th June, and the new season starts on 1st of July, when usually also the player's contracts start. So it will be wrong information to write, for instance, that Donnarumma is still a player of his old club and not a PSG player. On the national team pages, the current club should be outlined, as it has always been. There was even no need to open this discussion.--Bergenoslo (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think changing the note to something like "Caps and goals correct as of 11 July 2021, after the match against England. Clubs correct as of present day." should work. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree for the main reasons I've already explained above. You have already done this edit, but I don't see any consensus reached in this talk.--Island92 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD; there is a weak consensus to go with current clubs. And regardless, there is no reason to put the clubs as of the last call-up, given that we have a very simple solution (adding a sentence to the note). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, should the phrasing be "Clubs correct as of present day" or "Clubs are correct as of the present day"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A reason to put club as of the last call-up was present before starting this talk. Island92 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The way we were de facto operating was by displaying the clubs the players were currently playing for. Also, as SJ notes above, it's clear that the average reader expects to see the current clubs, as I have also only seen IPs change the clubs to the current ones, never to the ones at call-up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's why IPs want everything to be updated on the encyclopedia up to the current date. Basically, we are going against the source provived, which says Donnarumma plays for Milan at Euro. We should leave Milan into the table, along with a small ref explaining that from 1 July 2021 he's a PSG player, without changing the statement above. Could it be a reliable solution? Island92 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of the 10 editors who commented in here, 8 (Fsv7, RP, N1499, I007, Muur, SJ, Oesp, Berg) were in favour of Current Club and only 2 (I92 and GS) were in favour of previous club. Sure you presented a reason for your preferred method, but the other users also provided reasons why the Current is ideal. There are differing reasons and you can't just ignore other opposing reasons. As several users have stated, the actual UEFA Euro 2020 squads page will have Donnarumma as an AC Milan player, that will not change and has never been proposed, but the actual current Italian squad should have PSG because it's a current squad, is the current status quo, and there is not enough support to change it. RedPatch (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I will add another reason why having the current club is preferred in my opinion - the current club the player is at is how the manager views the situation. For example, if now Italy set up a friendly for next month and Mancini next weeks selects a squad, he needs to know who the player is currently contracted to - with which club he needs to negotiate a possible release for the player and this he needs to know before the selection. Also as a reader, I want to know what the current club situation is for the pool of players in selection contention for the national side. --SuperJew (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You might think I tend to adopt that method (isn't mine), but actually not. I accept whatever other users suggest doing, but remember just the fact source says Milan, not PSG. That's why a ref can be considered being crucial to clarify it, much better than the statement above. Needless to say, what was added into Euro 2020 squads will be never changed (clubs). Do whatever you may think to be good enough to add in that section. Have a good time on the encyclopedia. Island92 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the user Neheme1499, once again, has started to modify the base model of the football national teams without having a large CONSENSUS for his proposed modifications.. and this is not the first time that this user operates like that, misrepresenting the democratic rules of Wikipedia and pretending to have a large consensus which he doesn't have. In addition, please note that this user focuses ONLY on changing the ITALIAN NATIONAL TEAM page, so he is not driven at all by the general interest. --Bergenoslo (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: Quick tip (since it seems that you have personal issues against me): you can start a discussion at WP:ANI, if you believe I'm acting against the general interest of Wikipedia. (By the way, remember to indent (WP:INDENT) your comments on talk pages). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think changing the wording above the Current Squad is necessary as the outcome of this discussion (to list a player's current team) is now listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams page. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That also works. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think we should have the correct note on the national team page as the average reader won't read or be familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. --SuperJew (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The club listed should be the club at the time of the national team's last game. The national team disbands after every international window, so outside those windows, there is technically no such thing as a national team's "current squad". Listing the club a player moves to after they last played for the national team doesn't make sense as they weren't with that club when the national team last played. – Pee Jay 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, best explanation ever. With respect, but user @Nehme1499: has gone too ahead with his edits into the section.--Island92 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you agree with someone else, doesn't mean you should go and change the section based on your preference. The status quo has always been to change to the current day. Throughout this thread as a whole, there is more consensus to keep the way we have always been operating (updating the clubs to the present day) rather than to list the clubs as of the last game played. Arguments have been put forth for both sides, so repeating the same things won't get us anywhere. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I try to explain it better. On FIGC.com, where is the section related to the "current squad"? There isn't, because the current new squad is established once the manager selects the list of players for new upcoming matches. Only in that moment you should update the whole table with the current club the player is playing for because on the official site you will read the new list of players have been called. And we will add the source for this. Where is the truly sense to display Donnarumma into the table playing for PSG? Just because is it 21st July 2021? The entire current squad was selected for UEFA Euro 2020 (Donnarumma an AC Milan player), not for today. The current squad will be updated at the end of August for new 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification matches, and we will display it together with new clubs players will be playing for. It isn't a preference of mine, it's logic. More than seven users agree with you, but, to be really honest, you are wrong about displaying the current club.--Island92 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"More than seven users agree with you, but, to be really honest, you are wrong about displaying the current club." So you're saying that you're right just because you're right? Wikipedia doesn't have to follow what FIGC.com does. I can also show you examples of websites that update the team to the present day (see Global Sports Archive, which has Donnarumma as a PSG player - even Chiellini and Sirigu as free agents). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Displaying the club last call is the most suitable thing I consider being right, not the fact I'm right at all and it must be as I think. I've always thought for that section FIGC.com was the major priority to take into account. The main problem remains the same: the current squad as reported in that section wasn't called for today, but for the last tournament. There won't be a current squad until the end of next August.--Island92 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm for current club as well. Perhaps we may add a tooltip to reflect a different club at the time of last callup? --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Players table on PSG 2021-22 season article

Hello. I have several questions about this table. Firt of all in the "signed in" section, for youth players, should we put the year they joined the club or the year they joined the first team? Example is Presnel Kimpembe, who joined the first team in 2014 but PSG in 2005. Second question is about the club free agents join from. If a player signed a contract before they became a free agent (like Georginio Wijnaldum), then it's clear the club they signed from should be written. But for Sergio Ramos, Gianluigi Donnarumma, and Alexandre Letellier, I have a dilemma. Should we write the club they previously played for or write "Free agent/Free agency" (IDK which one) and leave a note stating their previous club, a bit like what was done for players who got released (see previous discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, the whole table should be changed to this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme - NOTSTATS applies and a huge table full of information is simply not required. Basic info & stats only. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This sort of table is very prevalent throughout WP:FOOTY articles. We are likely to receive a lot of resistance if we try to remove it, but I agree a lot of the info contained therein is pretty irrelevant. A player's date of birth, signing date, contract expiry date and transfer fee are totally pointless. The only signing info that is relevant is for players signed during that season, not players who joined before, and contract expiry info is often a guess for a lot of players. I'm also confused as to why we would need players' squad numbers to be included in the "Transfers" tables, especially for players who have left the club. – Pee Jay 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be prevalent - doesn't make it right. If it is against MOS/consensus then it should be removed. Giant Snowman 09:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

…Yes, that’s what I said. – Pee Jay 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

...yes, that's why I'm agreeing with you. Giant Snowman 08:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Way too much detail that isn't needed for a season article. The year or who people joined from, or when their contract ends is not relevant to that particular season. Number of total appearances is probably not needed too (especially when it looks like unsourced original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The same type of table is found on 2020–21 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season.
I think that instead of a statistics table like Nehme1499 suggested, we should just have a squad list (like for current squads of clubs). Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't display the seasonal statistics. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes for players joining from free agency

In the "out" part of this section on this article, we established that we shouldn't write the next club for players that were released (like Kays Ruiz-Atil) but instead leave a note like such. Should we also do that for players that joined from free agency (like Gigio Donnarumma and Sergio Ramos)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends when the player became a free agent. Notice the difference between Mario Balotelli here, and Andrea Barberis here. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If from free agency, no need to write previous club and is irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What should we write? "Free agent", "Free agency", "Unattached"? Should we leave a note stating their previous club? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unattached". No need for a note. --SuperJew (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skyblueshaun: please read this and stop adding leaving clubs on Rotherham United free signings / joining clubs on released players as you do every season. Thanks. Gricehead (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Should “Unattached” be in italics? And why should we leave a note for released players but not for incoming free transfer signings? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for italics. I also think that we probably should have a note to say which club the player last played for, but only if they were released and joined a new club in the same transfer window. If they become free agents in July 2021 and don't join a new club until January 2022, no need for the note. Also, if the last day of the player's contract with their old club is 30 June 2021 and they join a new club on 1 July 2021, we can say they moved directly; no need to say "Unattached" in those cases. – Pee Jay 14:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: What do you think of the wording for the notes? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The flags are definitely unnecessary, and I don't think you need to specify the date their contracts ended (most end on 30 June as a matter of course). You could just say "Last played for Real Madrid" and "Last played for Milan". – Pee Jay 16:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to list the club last played for or club joined afterwards unless it's a direct transfer. It's irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Why are the flags unnecessary? We have them normally. However, I personally think that the date the contract expired is relevant. That's just personal belief. Last played for Milan is fine too, I guess. to User:SuperJew: I don't think it's irrelevant. Readers might want to know where certain players came from; for readers, "unattached" is not very interesting and doesn't mean much. Paul Vaurie (talk)

Flags should never be used in prose. – Pee Jay 19:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: So the reader will click-through to the player's page and read their history of clubs. Maybe the reader is interested to know in which city the player was born? Should we include that too? Perhaps where the player played in their youth? Perhaps how many international appearances he has? The information relevant to the transfer is from where the player was transfered, the fee/type of transfer, contract length, and date (and of course reference). --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello. Can I get some input in this discussion? Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose transfer fees

Hello. How should we refer to transfer fees in the prose? For example, the transfer fee of a player is of ten million euros.
Option A: 10 million euros (do we wikilink euros or not?)
Option B: €10m
Option C: €10M
Option D: 10,000,000 euros
Option E: €10,000,000
Option F: 10m
Option G: 10M euros
Option H: €10 million
Option I: ten million euros.
Option J: another one? Make a suggestion?
Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:CURRENCY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

In prose, it should be €10 million, but in tables I would often abbreviate to €10m. – Pee Jay 22:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Manchester United F.C. squad

On {{Manchester United F.C. squad}} there are SO many players - something I haven't seen on other templates of this type. On 17 July, I removed all the players that weren't included in the first team per the Manchester United website. However, PeeJay decided to revert my changes, claiming that "these players are included because they have been registered with squad numbers for either domestic or European competitions". What is the solution? Should we include the players or not? Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should only have senior-contracted players --SuperJew (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the players in question are Bishop, Woolston, Laird, Mellor, Kovář, Galbraith, Devine, Bernard, Wellens, Mastný, McCann, Stanley, Levitt, Hardley, Emeran, Haygarth, Svidersky, Pye, Hansen-Aarøen, Hugill, and Fernández. In other templates like this, we usually only have players who are in the first-team squad per the official website. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Only players listed here should be listed for now, and you can add players who subsequently feature for the first-team. Giant Snowman 10:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with GS, we should follow who Man Utd class as their current first team players. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Also agree, also, the point of the template is to show what players have articles, to link the player articles together. It's pointless having names there with no articles. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That link doesn't list all of the players who currently have an article, though. Including all of the players who have a squad number avoids having to distinguish between first team and academy players, some of whom only have squad numbers because they need them in order to play in the Football League Trophy. – Pee Jay 11:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why should we avoid distinguishing between them? There is a difference. --SuperJew (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thirding what GS said, first team squad + players who feature for first team makes the most sense here. Macosal (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the above (first team + youth who play at least 1 game in the current season). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Overly detailed statistics

I removed a section from this manager's page which intended to list match statistics for every match the manager has overseen. Currently another section in the article lists win-loss statistics for U17 and U19 matches, I think they should also be removed. Even though Borussia Dortmund U19 is a youth team of a big club, which RS cover this level of football? Agree? Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Geschichte: Youth clubs should definitely be removed from the table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS for bios please?

I have genuinely tried hard to look for this. Earlier one of my created article titles was amended into the suffix '(Scottish footballer)' instead of '(footballer born 1879)' due to "standard dab". It's obviously not a big deal either way, but my understanding was the opposite - that the birth year should be used as disambig prior to nationality if it is known, as less potentially ambiguous. In this case the year is not in doubt, but neither is the nationality. Can someone direct me to the guideline either way? As I said, I did search but no joy. Crowsus (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also certain that we disambiguate by birth year, not nationality, due to the fact that a player might hold more than one nationality (or their nationality status might change). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:NCSP, and are correct that nationality is to be avoided wherever possible (but not in every case). Giant Snowman 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is indeed what I was searching for. The 'other' namesake is a modern day Aussie Rules player. Think that one was created first so I just let it sit at 'footballer' and added the further disambig to mine alone, and now both have been changed so they are referring to the nationality which I suppose would be the most obvious for anyone looking for either player - as much as birth year anyway (although the year difference was 120 years so also not likely that the wrong article would get clicked). Crowsus (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In which case the move is probably fine - the only time I use really nationality is to disambiguate from Aussie Rules players, as that is more useful than YOB in that specific context. Giant Snowman 08:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Stadiums

Could I please get more input here? @Dustyveil: argues that, I quote, 'we don't have to add 'Stadium' after every names, there is a description before them that already stated they're stadiums, we only write names.' Qby (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qby: Can you please explain what stadium and/or articles we are talking about? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. In China women's national football team#Matches section, @Dustyveil: adds '|stadium= Miyagi' instead of '|stadium=Miyagi Stadium'. and his explained that , I quote, 'we don't have to add 'Stadium' after every names, there is a description before them that already stated they're stadiums, we only write names.' Qby (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qby: I disagree, it should be Miyagi Stadium (the official name of the stadium), as "Stadium" is capitalized (it's part of a proper noun). It's not called "Miyagi stadium". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I agree with you. Qby (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The stadium name is "Miyagi Stadium", so that's what should be used. This seems like Dustyveil is trying to make an argument for no benefit to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Due personal, I have no arguement. But according to your logic, almost every pages about stadiums wrote and capitalize "Stadium" in their official names, so we mentioned and repeated, for every single time, the term "Stadium" in their names when providing information about stadiums? The term "Stadium" is not part of the "official" name. Trimbarista (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dustyveil: Why are you commenting as Trrimbarista? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a cooling name I signed for myself. Trimbarista (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

According to your logic, almost every pages about stadiums wrote and capitalize "Stadium" in their official names, so we mentioned and repeated, for every single time, the term "Stadium" in their names when providing information about stadiums? The term "Stadium" is not part of the "official" name. Trimbarista (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) By the way, the current page of China women's national football team reminds me of this one Special:Permalink/1027033969, both doesn't fit with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. And the Tournaments section in the China women's national football team is quite similar compared to the Record section in Special:Permalink/1027033969. @Felixsv7: and @Badass Flare: Sorry to bother you, but may I ask your opinion on this matter? As you were involved in this kind of thing before. Qby (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qby: Be WP:BOLD, and improve the article as you see fit. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Still part of the terming problem, the wiki-link doesn't valued up. And the commonly used structure is not exempted from flaws. Prototyping the term "Stadium" is an example of how molecules of these structure are overstated. As stated, all sides need to be BOLD and not emnytizing other ideas. Trimbarista (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Dustyveil is a disruptive (or possibly simply incompetent) editor who I recently blocked for messing up numerous articles. If they are continuing to do this, let me know, as they have been warned numerous times about their editing and are probably deserving of another block. Number 5 7 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is only a factor and doesn't rigidly apply to every circumstances. I have gradually and negotiably conform to many of your complaints yet you bring up further ones. There are specific thesis for different moves. Just because it's bold and somewhat different from a general view, it's not incompetent. The warning can't be associated with completely different complaints. Trimbarista (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Qby, it seems like the same editor as the UAE page to me. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a very good spot. The now-blocked IP made exactly the same changes to the UAE article – notably making plural headings like References and External links singular, which was one of the issues with Dustyveil's edits, it is certainly them. As numerous IPs of their were blocked for socking, some for up to a year. I have blocked them too. Number 5 7 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'd keep an eye on GiofaniRahman as well as they have a similar editing history! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Thanks – yes, that's an obvious sockpuppet, so also blocked. Let me know if any others appear. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Change to Template

I've noticed that several pages contain a small error in a template. A typical example is here. If you search for the word "different" you'll see that the template used says "different to" in several places, where the standard English is "different from". Is it possible to change this, and, if so, how?

Thanks in advance for any help with this. RomanSpa (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@RomanSpa: the template that should be changed is {{Fb cm footer}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thank you. If there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll make the necessary minor edit. RomanSpa (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that I have now made this change. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic or U23 in Infobox

How should participation in the Olympics be recorded in the infobox. It's a primarily U23 tournament, but 3 overage players are allowed. Should the teams be listed as "Country U23" or "Country Olympic". I've seen both. It doesn't make sense for the overagers to be listed as "U23" if they're older than that, but it seems impractical for the same team to be listed differently. (Note: the qualifying tournaments are U23 only and no overagers, so those could be considered U23). For example, Neymar lists his past participations as Brazil Olympic, André-Pierre Gignac for this tournament is listed as "France Olympic", all the Great Britain players in 2012 listed as "Great Britain Olympic", but then you have guys like Pedri, Unai Simón, and Marco Asensio (overage player) with Spain U23 in their infobox rather than Spain Olympic. RedPatch (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

One point is that Great Britain is listed at Great Britain Olympic football team (and also Germany is listed at Germany Olympic football team), but all (I think, unless there are more exceptions) the rest of the teams are listed as Exampleland national under-23 football team (such as Brazil). Anyways based on that, I would definately think GB & Germany should be listed as GB/Germany Olympic in the infobox. The rest I would say for overage list them as "Country Olympic" and for the rest "Country U23" as the stats are the same team as the under-23 playing in qualification and youth tournaments. --SuperJew (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, GB qualifies with different situations - in 2012 as hosts, this year the women through England's campaign at the WWC. Germany qualified through the 2019 UEFA European Under-21 Championship. I feel it's hard to make a general rule in this case. --SuperJew (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And also Portugal is found at Portugal Olympic football team. Maybe it's a European thing due to their qualifying being via an under-21 tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is down to the head coach of the Under-23s national team squad to pick a team for an Olympics. So the inclusion surprisingly both an Under-23 and Olympics team, however I feel we should just stick too U23 in the infobox. Here have a read of sporting news.com post. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Global Sports Archive calls all the national teams "U23", which to me makes the most sense. Plus, even other non-Olympic competitions have some "overage" players of some sort (87 23-year-olds participated in the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: This is correct, and it's because Euro U21 lasts two years and the players need to be of under 21 age when it starts in March, so if there is a team with all players born in 20 years ago from 1st January until one day earlier before the first qualifying match, all of them will be 23 in the summer two years later when the finals will be played, i.e. you could even have all players as "overage" (having 2 years more) in the finals, but that tournament serves also as the UEFA teams qualifiers for the Olympics, and it would be totally unfair to have players qualifying and then some of them not being in the finals, because of considered as overage... that is why U-x teams never had strict criteria (including FIFA and all continental confederations), and that is why an Olympic national team is a special case of an U23 team, so, because of that, just putting U23 to all teams wouldn't be wrong. However, if some countries create an U23 national team only for the Olympics, and not for other occasions, it also makes sense for those (and only for those) to be called Exampleland Olympic national team, otherwise there could be two different articles: one for U23 and one for the Olympic team, but I find this pointless because the latter is a special case of the former... Nialarfatem (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

new RfC for linking of the host nation at a World Cup

See Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And every tournament since 2002. Yeah, links link Germany because no one knows anything about it. Both Brazil and Japan are examples at WP:OVERLINK for pity sake! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Out of interest, where do we draw the line about which countries to link and which not? The MoS says This generally includes major examples of: countries - this means that not major examples of countries should be links. So where is the line? How is a country determined as major or minor? Size? Population? Number of English speakers? --SuperJew (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the line mine to draw? Clearly the United States, Germany, France, Spain and Brazil would be sufficiently well known to any reader of the English project that they do not need to be linked. Where do you draw the line? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where the line is drawn, therefore IMO if there is no clear line, this MoS is ambiguious and therefore I think we should link all countries. But stating an ambiguous MoS with no clear definition isn't helpful to a cause IMO. For example for 2022, some could argue Qatar is a major country, and some could argue it isn't, but with no clear definition we have no answer. --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the MoS being ambiguous. Either we link them all or we don't link at all (I opt for the latter). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this has much or at all to do with this WikiProject. My rule of thumb is not to link countries in general, but that's not exactly what MOS:OL says. But, the MOS isn't in any way specific to football articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I do the same as Lee - never link any country. Giant Snowman 17:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: It's relevant as we list countries often (most matchboxes) since football is an international sport and has many international tournaments. Perhaps the conversation should be at a more general talk page as well, but if MOS:OL is brought up as an argument in an issue pertaining to the project, than one can answer the argument. --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tables, captions and the like are exempt from OL, so that doesn't matter. What is being discussed here is the use in the prose of linking to countries, which isn't generally what we do. If we want to change that, or change the wording to make it more defining, it needs to go to VPP, not be defined locally on this project. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It was my understanding that we do not link countries in matchboxes but we link to the national team or organization nation in international matches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I came here to indicate that all of the RfCs were created incorrectly and that a discussion about them may be coming to the project's talk page (i.e., here). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Stade Briochin

Hello. In infoboxes, we refer to Stade Rennais F.C. as Rennes; in that case, should we refer to Stade Briochin as Saint-Brieuc? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you ask the project when you have doubts, but most of your questions can be answered by asking "what do reliable English-language sources say?" I doubt most people in this project know about Stade Briochin, a third-tier French club (unlike AC and Inter Milan). If there are specific grammatical rules in French (Stade Rennais --> Rennes), as we have with Swedish and German, then another French-speaking person might be of help. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to check what most English sources say. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt, Soccerway, Global Sports Archive, the club's Twitter, Google Knowledge pannel all call the club "Stade Briochin", for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source! Giant Snowman 11:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't affect their naming choices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it means they are worthless to us. Giant Snowman 13:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, let’s just go with Stade Briochin for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ACMILAN

Hello. Should WP:ACMILAN also apply to AC Ajaccio? The club is in a similar situation, with Gazélec Ajaccio being the other club from Ajaccio. Gazélec is now in the fourth tier, but five years ago, they were in the Ligue 1, so I think they aren't just some minor club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources in English call the two clubs? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have always referred to them as 'Ajaccio' and 'Gazélec Ajaccio'. Giant Snowman 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The first mention it is always best to use the more formal name a la "x plays for AC Ajaccio in French Ligue 1. He joined Ajaccio after bla bla bla" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bryan Gil

From what I understand of the transfer, per Spurs source, he joins the club after the Olympics, so what date do you put down for him? I am not sure he should be added to the articles yet on that note either. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The date of the source as he just joins them a bit later. Kante4 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

By the looks of that source, he's signed today, so today. The fact he's currently in Japan doesn't negate the fact that he has been signed by Spurs today. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We never know exactly when they sign. Sometimes clubs' socials sit on the signings and release them staggardley to create traffic and increase interest. So we should write based on release date. --SuperJew (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but because (and I agree) that we "never know exactly when they sign", saying "he signed on 26 July 2021" is not correct. What is correct is saying " on 26 July 2021 it was announced that he had signed". An important difference. Giant Snowman 15:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

just read the article. he signed today. all the "he joins us after the olympics" means he joins the team for training and such. he is a spurs player as of a few hours ago.Muur (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Yes, that wording is more precise. In general I'm for moving away from specific dates as it's not critical as we see. I will usually write, "in July 2021, it was announced Gil signed with..." or even "ahead of the 2021-22 season, Gil joined..." --SuperJew (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No concerns with that either. Giant Snowman 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually like writing in that style of In month' rather than On #date I prefer to see that also. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Wood

It appears that there is some confusion with certain editors recently about which appearance goes where while he plays for the Olympics. I hope I am right in saying the Olympic appearances and goals should be added to the U23 statistics from this last revision before the Olympic editing began but a couple of other editors and an IP address seems to add the latest appearances in the wrong place. There should be some agreement to which version is definitely the right one, I'd say 7 appearances and 3 goals for the New Zealand U23's as of 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

They're the same team; the stats should be added together. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with what I said above unless someone else disagrees with the stats I mentioned. But I'm glad to see the Olympics and U23's national teams are the same, with the exception of Great Britain and all women's teams. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, my understanding was that U23 and Olympics teams are the same. Giant Snowman 15:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

yes theyre the exact same thing. Only "difference" is that *technically* theyre called U24 right now due to the one year delay of the olympics but I don't think we should make the distinction and just go with U23. great britian is the only one I would use "olympic" for, as they otherwise don't actually exist and dont use U23 but like, that was only relevant 100 years ago and 2012. (and the women I guess)Muur (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A good idea would be for someone to produce a source that tells us how many apps/goals Mr Wood has for the U23s apart from those in the Olympic Games proper. 3/1 in the 2012 edition and 2/2 so far in the 2020 edition are readily sourceable, but nothing else is, not for those such as me who don't know where to look, anyway. Pinging @Eoin DAMM:, which is what I should have done in the first place: please could you point us to the source(s) you're using for his "other" U23 apps? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

He has Atleast 4 goals for the Under 23.

1 in 2012 Olympics 1 in a friendly for the 2021 Olympic season 2 so far in the 2021 olympics Eoin DAMM (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chris-wood/profil/spieler/108725 Eoin DAMM (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Giant Snowman 16:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for replying. As GiantSnowman says, Transfermarkt isn't considered to be a reliable source on the English Wikipedia. Trouble is, if we're going to put specific figures in the infobox, they're supposed to be both verifiable and complete. We can verify that he has 5/3 in Olympics proper so far, and that he's played in the odd match here and there, but what we actually need is some sort of official list of NZ U23 matches with evidence of which ones he played in. Without verification, whatever appears in the infobox is worse than useless, because it misleads the reader.

Please don't take this personally: the stats were unsourced before ever you edited them, it's only because of the back-and-forth that people noticed they were unsourced. We just hoped you might have access to some source that as yet, no-one else had come across. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the 5/3 is from sources, any other appearances he has made for the U23's appears to be out of the equation and I've discounting transfermarket in my search. Re "7 appearances", it looks like they don't include friendlies, e.g from this website shows competitive matches from the 2012 and 2020 editions. And I apologise for including my signature in the page before the "fix timestamp" edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

shouldnt be hard to find individual match reports for each match mentioned on transfer market.Muur (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: (sorry I'm late to the party) There's no point in comparing the men's situation to the women's situation as the men's is age-limited and the women's isn't. And if you are it actually strengthens the argument to add the U23 and Olympics stats together in the infobox, since there is no distinction between women's Olympic and other senior international appearances. --SuperJew (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Stats for Wood:

2012 Olympics: vs. Belarus, vs. Egypt (1 goal), vs. Brazil 3(1) 2021 friendlies: vs. Australia (1 goal) 1(1) 2020 Olympics: vs. South Korea (1 goal), vs. Honduras (1 goal) 2(2) Total: 6(4) Someone mentioned another two games? --SuperJew (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Found one vs. Australia dated 15 July 2021 which was a friendly. That makes the total 7 (4). I also found two other appearances from New Zealand national under-23 football team dating back to 2012 - (appearance 1 and appearance 2), both I had to use the wayback machine to see if he was on the list of players who played. Therefore that bumps it up to 9 (4) with the inclusion of the match reports I've included.

And yes I see there is no point for comparison as what SuperJew responded after the mention of me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right of course he played in both Olyroos v Olywhites friendlies now. Brain fart by me... sorry --SuperJew (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well done with those. Do we have something to prove they're definitely the only ones he played in, or are they still just the only ones we have sources for? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This is all turning a bit OR/SYNTHy - like Struway2 says, what if there are other games you have not been able ti find through your own research, and are therefore inadvertently adding incorrect information as 'fact'? Giant Snowman 09:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You could say that about any information added. Especially with youth levels, doubt anywhere it will say "Wood played X(Y) games and not more" --SuperJew (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

True, but there's a difference between using a reliable source which might be incomplete, and simply trying to find all the games yourself. The margin for error is much greater. Giant Snowman 10:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyways, the amount of games that New Zealand under-23 played is small enough to allow to search all their games played. I checked also the qualification games for 2012 Olympics and he didn't play in them. --SuperJew (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that covers everything; by listing all matches played from 2012, we may have counted the 5 appearances and 1 goal from the 15 July 2021 version, adding to the 2020 Olympic matches gives him the 9 matches and 4 goals scored that I mentioned yesterday. Those were the matches I can find that he played in in 2012 from the page I linked in my previous reply. It's a good thing to have more than one pair of eyes checking the same facts from this point of view. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree: in this case, there are complete lists of U23 matches, at RSSSF up to 2015, and UltimateNZSoccer to date. Wood's NZ Football profile as of just after the 2012 Olympics gives 5 U23 apps 1 goal, so we can start from there.

He wasn't in the squads for the 2015 Pacific Games, 2019 Pacific Games, or the friendlies against Australia and the 2019 Olympic qualifiers. So all we have to actually add up ourselves are the 2021 matches: first and second friendlies against Australia, 2 apps and 1 goal, and the 2020 Olympics, 2 apps 2 goals so far per worldfootball.net or other source of choice. So 5/1 + 4/3 = 9/4 as of now.

I don't think this does cross the border into OR/synth, personally, and unless anyone objects, I'll copy the sources to the article talk page and add a note in the infobox as to where the reader can find them. It does raise a general question, though, about quality of sourcing for youth stats in infoboxes. Some nations do publish readily accessible stats, e.g. the Danish federation's database is comprehensive, but very many don't, yet we keep on filling infoboxes with stats that have no obvious source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021–22 Coppa Italia

Can you help me to reach a concensus for this discussion Dr Salvus 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the issue. On 8 June 2021 Lega Serie A have published two statements in this page [2] (they're in italian). The first one is about the rules of 2021–22 Coppa Italia --> [3], the second one is an empty fixtures table based on ranks --> [4]. The point 3.1 of first statement establishes the criteria for formation of fixtures table: teams are ranked based on places they've reached in the previous season. E.g.: Juventus is ranked 1 because they won previous Coppa Italia, Inter is ranked 2 because they won 2020–21 Serie A, Milan is ranked 3 because they finished 2nd in previous Serie A etc. According to these official rules, @Dr Salvus: and I have composed the fixtures, based on the table in the second statement. So for example Torino (ranked 17) will face Vicenza (ranked 32) and so on. However, Lega Serie A hasn't communicated fixtures yet, they've only published rules. In poor words, they haven't filled the table. So I'm asking: is writing fixtures considered an original research or must we wait for final announcement by Lega Serie A? Because that means that we can't even open the pages of next seasons of clubs before the start of championships unless an official statement says they will participate.--Andyen94 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep fixtures - As long as there are clear and immutable rules that mention what team receives exactly what rank, I believe this is OK. Combining the information found in two different sources isn't original research. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is not a communication from the organizers about which teams matches the rank. In fact, the first guess published in the page was totally wrong when the official fixtures for the preliminary round were disclosed. Also, the source must be reliable, and the one initially used clearly stated that it was a guess, a provisional expectation. In my opinion, waiting for the official communications is a must, Wikipedia is not an online newspaper. --GC85 (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep fixtures I am going with.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Spanish sportspeople of African descent

To me this category (which contains a number of footballers) looks like overkill - any thoughts before I take to CFD? Giant Snowman 09:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If anything it looks like a good fork for Category:Spanish people of African descent. There are also similar categories at Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

But WP:NARROWCAT applies. If a person is in 'X footballers' and 'X people of Y descent', why do they also need to be in 'X sportspeople of Y descent'? Giant Snowman 11:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in "X people of Y descent" and "X sportspeople of Y descent", they should only be in the latter. For example, Achraf Hakimi is only part of "Spanish sportspeople of Moroccan descent" (and not of "Spanish people of Moroccan descent"). Ansu Fati, on the other hand, is (correctly) both part of "Spanish sportspeople of African descent" and "Spanish people of Bissau-Guinean descent". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fati is an outlier though due to the small size of the African nation. I've just added four to the cat, and they all had Spanish footballer (of course) and Spanish people of [African country] descent (2 Ghana, 1 Angola and 1 Algeria), so the Sportspeople was an additional one. Crowsus (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is all correct. The only conflict is between the categories "Spanish people of [African country] descent" and "Spanish sportspeople of [African country] descent"; only the latter should be used of the two (for now we only have Equatorial Guinea and Morocco). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: why are you creating new categories whilst the merits of them are still being discussed here? Giant Snowman 14:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Because I believe them to be valid categories. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I always find these type of categories a bit strange, it's like a category for Find my past! Govvy (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Squad template format

This isn't in common usage, is it? Author of the edit says it is. I didn't see it in the Premier League club articles. - Seasider53 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually we have them listed by squad number, rather than by position as in this example. Also, not sure why (U21) is needed- if they're just under-21 players, they shouldn't be on the squad list, and conversely if the source lists them on the first team squad, then the fact they're under 21 is irrelevant, as they're a first-team player. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope that is not standard. Standard is to organise by squad number, and for those that don't have squad numbers, stick them at the end and organise by surname. No need for 'U21' or similar (exception - possible leagues like MLS that have HG/marquee players etc.) - the only other information should be captain, vice captain, and which club a loan is from (if applicable). Giant Snowman 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Per above. List per numbers and no youth players. Kante4 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I thought that players without squad numbers were first sorted by position, then by surname. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Can be relevant to have U-21 if it's a different kind of contract. For example in the A-League, each club can sign up to 9 players on scholarship contracts which is first team contracts which are paid national minimum wage which is outside the salary cap (explanation here). --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the idea of sorting by position first, as long as the secondary sort is squad number. A lot of websites sort squad lists by position first, not least of them UEFA and many club websites. – Pee Jay 15:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this isn't correct since the only concrete position these days is goalkeeper. Many players are defender/midfielder or midfielder/forward or all over the field. The same player you can see described at a different position in different squad lodgements for different tournaments. Positions/players are to versitile these days to sort based on them. --SuperJew (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Spot on. Giant Snowman 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet we assign positions to players in these squad lists. How is this a problem? – Pee Jay 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

yeah this isn't how blackpool's squad is supposed to be listed. plus many teams play players that are U21 in their first team. phil foden for example. seems weird to specify. if you were gonna specify I feel like youd go with home grown, but why would this matter reallyMuur (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sergio Rico

Sergio Rico has played one match for the Spain national team back in June 2016. It has been over 5 years since his appearance, and if I remember correctly, the consensus was to close the international career if a player didn’t play for the national team for 5 years (like for Benzema). Now, Rico’s last call-up for Spain dates to March 2017 (according to what I could find.) Should we close the international career? If yes, should it be just 2016 or 2016–2017? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 2016, we only consider the years a player has actually played in for the national team, not the years he was called-up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

'2016' only. Giant Snowman 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Danny Makkelie

Hi folks. I could use more eyes at Danny Makkelie. An WP:SPA editor, Kleikema, has been edit-warring to remove criticism from the article. In my view, the criticism is both reliably sourced and WP:DUE: the penalty in England v Denmark match was widely discussed during the Euros.

At their Talk page, I have pointed out various relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:DUE, and WP:BRD.

In light of WP:COI concerns, I have also asked the editor whether they know Makkelie "personally or professionally". Their emotionality and their username ("Kleikema" is an anagram of Makkelie) would suggest as much. They have not responded to the question. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Same counts for Robby who is clearly bashing Makkelie with offensive and one-sided look at the situation. Following a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s factual. And by including all kinds of peripheral information, the impression is strongly created that he intends to put makkelie in a bad light. Kleikema (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Following a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s factual. Wikipedia follows the sources. I have pointed out Wikipedia:Verifiability to you a few times now. Have you read it?

he intends to put makkelie in a bad light Stop making bad-faith accusations. WP:AGF is a basic tenet of Wikipedia. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Do the Universiade Games count for listing a player's nationality?

If a player has represented a country at the Universiade Games, does that count for listing a player's nationality? It's an internationally recognized tournament, just not a FIFA one, but technically the Olympics aren't FIFA either, but we would accept that for a player's nationality. Is it also acceptable for the infobox (i.e. "Country Universiade" #(#) or no?). I ask because I was editing Lukas MacNaughton and I was reverted on his club page for changing his nationality to Canada which he represented in those tournaments (nation of his birth USA also competed, but he didn't represent them). Some players do have it in their infobox, for example Reo Hatate RedPatch (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, as it's same as playing for the country's youth team. If he'd played for Canada U-19s, then we'd list him as Canadian, so makes sense to be consistent for Universaide appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Hello! I don't see why not. However, as far as I am concerned of, and as far as I know, I'd say the national team of the Universiade Games is an U23 national team (well, more or less, as obviously a university national team can have players with 23 or more years old, as universities are not age restricted, but the majority of its members will still be U23, so it can be considered an U23 national team), even though the age limit is at 28 and in the latest years the football tournaments of the Universiade had a limit at 25, but it's not so much like playing to the country's U-x (U23, U21, U20, U19) youth teams, as, while these national teams are made mainly of professional players, the Universiade national team is in the majority of its players or entirely an amateur national team, so for this reason I think Canada U23 (amateur) or Canada U25 (amateur) with a note linking to Universiade Games and/or explaining it was a university national team would-should be an acceptable better choice-alternative so also the age to be indicated, or just Canada Universiade (amateur) with a note indicating it's an U25 age-restricted national team, as I do think "amateur" is needed to differentiate it from professional national teams and the age is also needed so to follow the U-x format like all age restricted national teams in the infobox, unless the Canada Universiade is a hyperlink to an article explaining it's about an amateur university U25 national team or there is a note explaining this. Kind regards! Nialarfatem (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

IP Range disruptive editing

Is there anything that can be done about an IP range or is it just something that is going to have to be monitored? IP starting 88.232 keeps editing football articles and nearly all the edits are disruptive. Just got one IP number banned for 32 hours but not sure looking at range history if that is going to be enough? Wondered if others have dealt with something like this before? — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I've encountered this before, I just had to keep reporting. They just get progressively longer bans. One I dealt with got the following bans: 1 week->1 month->3 months->6 months->never came back RedPatch (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Annoying but understand. Will just keep an eye on the range. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"US Secretary of Defense"

Not sure of the logic of these edits made by various IP's, this disruption (e.g. here) has been going on for a couple of days. A page protection should stop, however, the page history with when these edits were made shows many of us is in nighttime so many of you may be unaware of this except for me this morning. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Eugh, not the first time this has happened to a USA goalkeeper - if you recall Tim Howard in 2014. – Pee Jay 22:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It's because of her saves during the Olympics. If it was just once, it'd be just be a fun edit, but since it's continuously being changed I put in a request for page protection. RedPatch (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: - yes I have now found when those edits were made on the Tim Howard - I wasn't registered on Wikipedia with my user name back then so I missed the similar editing pattern. With protection applied to the article back then and I'd noticed the same thing has indeed happened to recent disruptive editing, I hope there is no more disruption to the recent article. Also see Craig David where many IP addresses claimed he is a member of the archery team as the bow selector (e.g. this edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see that the amount of saves that Tim Howard made and the Olympics saves this year could well be the reasons why these edits have been made. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Bow selector! lol, that did make me laugh know. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Scottish club season articles - infobox

Hi everyone - Is there a specific MOS to Scottish football clubs that I'm unaware of and cannot seem to find? I ask this because in about 90% of infoboxes for Scottish clubs, the League Cup is always positioned above the Scottish Cup. Not only do I not like this as I think it suggests that the league cup is more prestigious or important than the national cup, but it's also against the MOS standard of League then National Cup and then League Cup. I've also found that a lot of footballers in Scotland who have won both cups, tend to have the League Cup positioned above the Scottish Cup in their honours section - which I think is a result of the incorrect positioning that's been done in the infobox. If there is a specific MOS for Scottish football to organize like this then that is one thing but if the argument is that the league cup in Scotland is finished before the national cup then that is not justifiable as that's the case in every country. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. It has always perplexed me that the League Cup has been ranked above the Scottish Cup but I think some people put it that way because it is chronological. The Scottish Cup is cup one though and should be listed as such in the infobox. I didn't realise the MOS listed the national cup as the first cup otherwise I would've been bold and changed a few season articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Purely chronological. Its been since the Scottish task force was created, not that there are many editors left from that. Personally I don't think its positioning in info box denotes anything about prestige of a cup, although i am not overly bothered either way.Blethering Scot 21:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the club/league season articles will just be a copy and paste of the previous season with a few numbers changed - so you probably shouldn't read too much into it. No objection to them being changed. Boothy m (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all for feedback. I am going to start marking the Scottish Cup as cup1 in infoboxes that I cam across where this is not the case and also position it above the league cup in the body of the article is the MOS practice and as you see with clubs throughout the world who compete in both a national cup and league cup - England, Portugal, France, Japan, Qatar, etc. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on tables of international tournament

I have been trying to add a table of international tournament participated by footballers under the column of 'international career' on their page, however, my multiple edits were reverted by several other editors. They kindly reminded me that I need to seek for consensus here, but I don't really know how this works. I've seen similar tables in the Spanish language version wikipedia, and I think it helps massively when I check the pages of the players that I wasn't familiar with before, so it became an idea recently that I should add this to the English version Wiki, my original intention was that this could definitely help people. Peilin99 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If anything, we can find a way to incorporate this into the already existing International career statistics table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thank you for your reply. Can I start doing this now? Does it count as we've reached consensus? or do I need more editors to approve? Peilin99 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peilin99: No obviously we need more input from other editors. This change wouldn't be a minor one, so it's best to take our time. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally think this is an interesting idea and wouldn't be opposed to it but the career stats table mentioned by Nehme does seem to cover it already though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced of the table's usefulness. I don't see the benefit. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Robby. Don't see the reason to include such a table. Kante4 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to also agree here: I also don't think there is a need for a separation of goals and appearances by international tournament, meaning I don't think it's essential, even though I can understand that to some people may be good info to know, i.e. the way we have it, matches and goals by year only, is good enough, unless someone convinces me this kind of granularity is crucial information. However, it must be said that listing the top participants and top goalscorers of a tournament in an article about the statistics-records of the tournament (or a section of its article) is a different thing, and a crucial part of the tournament... Nialarfatem (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the standard international stats by year table being expanded to include the bits directly relevant to the player: i.e. tournament, apps, goals, but without the flags and the head coach. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe as Struway2 suggests - can be done by adding a column to the International career statistics table detailing tournaments participated in (a notes column?) --SuperJew (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I often try to do this by differentiating between competitive matches and friendlies, but I don't see any need to get any more granular by noting which major tournaments the player appeared in in a given year. – Pee Jay 21:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't hate it but I think this might become overkill. Maybe better trying on a manager's stats table first? Rupert1904 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1994 Malaysian football scandal

Came across this in the new page feed and wondered if there was an older article or another one to redirect too. At the moment, it's very flat information wise! I did think it could be a redirect to somewhere, I also felt that WP:NOTNEWS might also apply. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the biggest scandal in Malasia, guess the article can be improved but stand on its own. -Koppapa (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. Lifetime bans mean it was a big deal. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football, if you did want to merge/redirect anywhere. Giant Snowman 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess it has merit, certainly needs improvement if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ben White career statistics table

I recently made this edit to Ben White's career statistics table, putting the U23 stats below the senior stats as he made his senior debut before his EFL Trophy debut, and adding rows for seasons where White did not play for Brighton's first team as per WP:FOOTY/Players (my recollection was there was no concensus in that discussion on Ike Ugbo, but lost track as that discussion was so long and Ugbo's seems to be including those rows with 0s, so I added them at White's article like that). The former part was reverted by Daemonickangaroo2018, with that rationale that 'under-23 should go first' and the latter by Mattythewhite. So, should (a) clubs in these tables be arranged chronologially, such that U23 goes below first-team when the player played for the first-team first, and (b) rows be included for the parent club even when they fail to play, as is shown in WP:FOOTY/Players. Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think display the U23 stats above the senior club, and yes, 'empty' rows should be displayed when a player is out on loan as per MOS. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

looks like Ugbo is missing his U23 stats from the EFL Trophy on his page. also I was under the impression we would list the U23 stats under the senior team in a similar vein as loaned out stats.Muur (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we're removing the "U21" part from the team that played in the EFL Trophy, when that's what the Soccerbase source describes the team as being in the 2018/19 season. And I can't see where the player MoS encourages us to include redundant rows where a player was out on loan the entire season? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

'empty' rows should be displayed when a player is out on loan as per MOS is per GiantSnowman's (and some other editors) reading of the MoS, while others don't read it that way as it is ambiguious regarding what to display for players out of loan. There was a big discussion about this in the past few months and no consensus was reached. --SuperJew (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

+1. Spike 'em (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The MOS clearly has a 2010–11 parent row for Template United, even though the player was out on loan that season at Wiki City... Giant Snowman 08:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at this discussion. Not the place to re-open it. My comment was only to state that the fact that you claim something doesn't make it true or consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is an indisputable fact that in the MOS there is a row for the 2010–11 season in the parent club entry and a row for the 2010–11 season in the loan club. Giant Snowman 10:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That is true. But that in itself doesn't support the claim. Perhaps this theoratical player moved on loan to Wiki City mid-season and was eligible for Template United in the first half of the season? As I said, it's ambiguous without exact dates and without supporting prose and/or infobox. --SuperJew (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Stadion Wiener Neustadt ≠ Wiener Neustadt Arena

Good evening, it's two stadium different stages: Stadion Wiener Neustadt (Demolished in 23 April 2020 [5], [6], [7]) ≠ Wiener Neustadt Arena (Opened in 28 September 2019 [8], [9]). Thank you. Arturo63 (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why one of these links in the section header is a redirect to the other linked article. Once one stadium opens before the other gets demolished, both stadiums temporarily exists at the same time so they should most definitely be different articles, if the "Wiener Neustadt Arena" article passes notability with notable sports history of it's tenants. Pinging @Robby.is.on: who I believe knows the language from these websites provided. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. What can I do for you? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What these articles the original poster provided are saying, though now I realised I can translate them into English on the browser I'm using. I'm also wondering if I am right in saying what I said before. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove the redirect page [10]? Arturo63 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Vannes

Could someone update the logo for Vannes OC? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Swansea City F.C. too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Have uploaded and added the Vannes logo. The new Swansea crest will only be used on the shirts. The main one stays the same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tino Livramento

Is he notable enough now to warrant an article? He just moved for £5 million to the Southampton first-team and is a member of the England U-20 team. Or should we wait until he makes his senior club debut? Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Does he meet WP:GNG? Signing for a big club / playing youth international football are not enough. Giant Snowman 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is why I am asking. I think there is a case for him to have an article now. To WP:GNG, there has been significant coverage of his move from reliable sources with it being covered in Sky Sports, The Guardian, the BBC, The Athletic, Eurosport, Daily Mail, etc and was given a squad number with the first-team at Southampton. He made 3 appearances in the 2020–21 EFL Trophy and was also on the bench for multiple Premier League games for Chelsea last season. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Transfer reports are not considered significant coverage. Anything about him? Daily Mail also not a RS. Giant Snowman 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by articles about him? And why are transfer reports not considered significant coverage? Is that a guideline? Seems like a strange policy and that you're suggesting these articles contain no information about the player? While I have actually found that a lot of the time, transfer related articles or new contract articles have the best information related to who players are, their backgrounds, their careers up to that point, etc. It's not like BBC is publishing a profile on a different footballer every day. Here are a few articles on Tino's background and his recent transfer and a couple other similar articles on players to expand on my point.

- Football London (mentions his appearances in EFL Trophy): Who is Tino Livramento? Meet the rampaging wing-back on the bench for Chelsea vs Man City
- Southampton (good overview of his career so far): Saints complete Livramento deal
- The Athletic (this one specifically mentions him being a first-team player) Southampton sign Chelsea teenager Tino Livramento on five-year deal
- Goal (this is the most in-depth piece on Tino's career): Tino Livramento: Why European clubs are queuing up to sign Chelsea's academy star
- Leicester City (I used info from this piece to expand on Marc Albrighton's wiki article): Marc Albrighton new contract
- Werder Bremen (I used this in creating Maik's article): Maik Nawrocki moves to Legia Warsaw on loan

Rupert1904 (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also see that you created Louie Barry's article in 2019 on the basis of him signing for Barcelona - even though he wasn't part of the first team there, never made an appearance for their senior side, and it was a further 18+ months before made a senior appearance after moving to Aston Villa. The notability standards for starting an article for a player seem murky at best. There's a lot of articles about Tino, he made three appearances in the 2020–21 EFL Trophy, made the bench for Chelsea in the Premier League last season, and has now been the subject of a sizable (for his age) transfer to another Premier League club where he has been included in the first-team. I'm going ahead and making an article for him. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of canceled friendly matches

Are canceled friendly matches worthy of inclusion in club season articles? SLBedit (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine to briefly include them in prose about the pre-season, but I don't think it is necessary to include them in results tables as they didn't actually happen. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories

A user (@Mitch Ames:) has used AWB to remove valid categories such as Category:Greek football managers and Category:Australian soccer coaches from articles (now reverted). However, they were not tagged as non-diffusing, hence the confusion - should we run a bot or similar to tag all parent categories in Category:Association football managers by nationality (and Category:Association football players by nationality to avoid further confusion? Giant Snowman 06:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes, if they should all have that, and my understanding is they should. Crowsus (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CATSPECIFIC is clear that articles ought not be in a category and its parent. I don't see the need for non-diffusing categories here, but if you think it appropriate, please add {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and {{All included}} to the categories, to avoid the same "confusion" happening in future. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In absence of {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and {{All included}}, WP:CATSPECIFIC applies and the articles should be removed from the parent category. According to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mitch - no, the consensus is clear. Try and remove Category:English footballers from Category:England international footballers and see how many reverts/warnings you get from different users...the categories are non-diffusing, they just need to be tagged appropriately. Giant Snowman 10:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

they just need to be tagged appropriately — Then please do that. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Danny Ings

Please help with an imminent edit war on Danny Ings between myself and User:RossButsy. He is of the opinion that only the Aston Villa article about his transfer should be included as a citation, whereas I think that at least one other source independent of the club (preferably the BBC) should be cited. In my experience, club articles are fairly temporary and are taken down after a year or so, whereas BBC articles remain available online permanently. He also objects to any reference to a transfer fee with the rather bizarre logic: "the club source doesn’t mention a fee because there is no fee when it says undisclosed it stays as undisclosed". Any help with coming to common ground would be appreciated. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018: Not every transfer has an immediate transfer fee circulating case in point this. Sky Sports news and their associated journalists didn’t mention any kind of transfer fee. Also how this transfer was very quickly announced is different to others where normally there would be days, weeks etc of speculation in those a fee would be reported where as this was announced and caught the public with a surprise. I’m fine with you removing the club article but I disagree with your opinion that they delete them after a year. I’ve made edits with club website posts still up to this day from two+ years ago. RossButsy (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

On the latter point, see the first citation in the AVFC section of the Ollie Watkins article, which is now a dead link after less than a year. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An independent source is always preferable, and there's nothing wrong with saying "the fee was reported as X" as long as sources agree and you haven't got the BBC saying it was £13m and Sky Sports saying it was £24m or something like that. – Pee Jay 13:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well some sources are doing exactly that. Guardian saying £26 million bbc saying £24 million. RossButsy (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. Both the BBC and the Guardian are both saying the fee was £25m. And even if that weren't the case, when two similar fees are reported, they can both be mentioned in the article. – Pee Jay 15:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Change it then. No Objections from me. Case closed. RossButsy (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@RossButsy: Please learn to properly indent your comments so we know who you're replying to. – Pee Jay 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018: Regarding the saying club articles are fairly temporary and are taken down after a year or so, that can be the case in a lot of stuff - many times sites reorganize their format and then links change around and they don't always bother redirecting (have had this on the A-League site, the clubs' sites, the FIFA site, FourFourTwo/FTBL, and many more). The solution is to create an archived version using a web crawler (like this one) if there isn't one already created automatically, and link it in the ref at the "archiveurl" parameter. --SuperJew (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not put both? "The transfer fee was not disclosed by the clubs. Figures ranging from X to Y were reported by the media." Oldelpaso (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The current version looks good to me, i.e. "undisclosed fee reported to be...". That's what I had on my own mind when I first saw this discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Lists of penalty shoot-outs

Hi all, sorry if this has already been discussed. Where does the community stand on these lists? I saw List of Football at the Summer Olympics penalty shoot-outs and thought it was a cool topic but not sure where it stands on notability in terms of specific sources covering the intersection of 'penalty shoot-outs' at 'x tournament'. I found the following:

The only odd one out is the last one, which does include a list of sources. Of course, match reports could be added for the rest as well by going through match reports and newspaper archives but the merit of topic is still somewhat questionable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how those are helpful articles. That seems likes trivial WP:OR if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Govvy would you say that WP:NOTSTATS applies here? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably, I've often put articles to AfD and have that backfire on me and kept. You've only seen my viewpoint, I'd wait to see if others feel the same as me know. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't think these are needed. Giant Snowman 09:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say the same. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also support deletion. Please feel free to ping me if yo nominate any of these for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note that pinging someone specifically (other than the article creator or major contributors) when nominating for AfD is WP:Canvassing. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to inform Editors who have asked to be kept informed Spike 'em (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also fine to ping everyone who's participated in a previous discussion (i.e. this one) if/when related AfD starts. This definitely happens often where we've had discussions here, and then AfD is started. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I decided to bite the bullet and start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs after diving into them a bit more. I haven't looked into the rest yet. I decided to do individual discussions as some topics may have more merit than others, I'm not sure. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass creation of "Fooian expatriate footballers in bar" categories

See Special:Contributions/23shlomomaman23. Is this a desired categorization? Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Was just coming here to post this - I think not, and I am sure there is consensus at CFD previously not to have categories like this. Giant Snowman 10:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just notified the user at his talkpage that these are unwanted. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

We then need to purge the rest of the Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality and country of residence. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

FIFA sources for legal names

In examining the official FIFA source for the women's Olympic tournament, I discovered that Ellen White (footballer) and Steph Houghton have legally taken their husbands' names, while continuing their work under their maiden names. [11] On White, this was reverted with the explanation that it's "wrong" because she is still called Ellen White as a player. [12] I reverted this back because the logic is faulty and FIFA should be a reliable source, or thousands of pages on men and women need revising. There doesn't seem to have been any problem on Alex Morgan (a Good Article) in using FIFA to prove that she now has a married surname but still plays as Morgan. Please can somebody keep an eye on these pages before it turns into a lame edit war. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:7D66:53DB:E519:5646 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no problems with including the married names, but having the article at the (COMMONNAME) maiden name. Giant Snowman 15:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Can also always add the "Birth Name" parameter underneath in the infobox as well, like the Alex Morgan page has. RedPatch (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Giant Snowman 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In an article such as Ellen White (footballer), I would definitely start the article with Ellen Toni White (married Convery; born... etc. The same thing goes for artists that were known under a name when they were young, and then married to another name many, many years later. In addition, when people get even older, may be married two times or more, changing their married name every time. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Association football goalkeepers who have scored

I was looking through the Alisson article and noticed the category "Association football goalkeepers who have scored" has disappeared so I thought I may need to add this in as other goalkeepers who scored indeed had that category, before discovering the category has been deleted. Oh well, I didn't notice there was a discussion on that back in June. Seems reasonable as to why it was deleted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a list now, List of goalscoring goalkeepers. Geschichte (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected plagarism on Chelsea's current season page

Hey, on Chelsea's current season page, there seems to be direct plagarism in the review section (copied word for word from the sources). I haven't actually come across such an issue in all my time on Wikipedia, so wanted to ask for advice here first before acting. --SuperJew (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright and Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors - in short remove the offending stuff, tag the article for revdel, and warn the editor who added it. Giant Snowman 20:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged for revision deletion (for future reference, it's Template:Copyvio-revdel), and warned the user. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't have time to deal with it as I had an exam this morning (3 more left...) --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Honours

I think for the big European (and South American) teams there is no need to list fourth or semi-final (no medal)!!! In fact, just stating the champion, runner-up and 3rd place is enough for the big teams in the world. 2001:EE0:41C1:96F3:E43D:6AE9:4206:F1EA (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - in fact, it should be winner of league only, and winner/runner-up of Cup only. Giant Snowman 09:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the pages about all the major teams (except Germany) still having the fourth and semi-final titles in "Honours", and so let's fix them all.

2001:EE0:41C1:96F3:E43D:6AE9:4206:F1EA (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Old squad numbers

Does anyone know of a reliable source for Football League players' squad numbers in previous seasons? Specifically I am looking at the 1999-2000 season, the first season in which the Football League used them. Soccerbase doesn't list them, Soccerway doesn't even have squad data that far back, and beyond that I'm not really sure where else to look...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This any good? Giant Snowman 13:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? Any idea who runs it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you looking for something specific? The Birmingham Mail published my lot's numbers at the start of that season, and archive copies exist. Daresay other papers did the same for their local clubs, although it wouldn't help with players who joined during the season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Trying to expand 1999–2000 Gillingham F.C. season and I cannot find a reliable source for the squad numbers online. Unfortunately I only attended a couple of games that season for various reasons and didn't keep the programmes from the ones I did go to, although even if I had they almost certainly wouldn't have covered every single player...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

you could probably find some old programs on ebay or something and failing that, you could DM and/or email the actual team and see if they can help you.Muur (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The backs of these two programmes give you quite a few. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Struway2:, between those two programmes I have actually covered all bar two players. I'll see if I can make contact with anyone online who might have copies of programmes which could confirm the other two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: never thought yesterday, ENFA gives squad numbers against the players in its match details pages. If it's only a few you're missing, let me know and I'll look them up for you later. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: - fab - thanks! It's just Manny Omoyinmi and Anthony Williams I am missing. Let me know if you need details of specific matches in which they played -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Football programmes are published works and full under journal category as a cite. So that should be sorted really. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Omoyinmi 38, Williams 39. Both played in the match cited: <ref>{{cite web |url=https://enfa.co.uk/ |title=Matches: 18 September 1999: Gillingham 0–2 Preston North End |website=English National Football Archive |access-date=10 August 2021 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabulous - thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, aa, good ol Junior Lewis was in the Gills squad then, I've played a little footy with him on the Barnet training pitch many years ago. Govvy (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Template colors

Hello! I see that the colors of many national football team templates are changed. Why can't you have the established like they was previously. Like on the templates of Paraguay, South Africa, Morocco, Belgium and so forth. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Most likely MOS:CONTRAST Spike 'em (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, one IP user (45.120.113.5) seems to be changing lots of colours for national football template. The couple I've checked were perfectly fine beforehand, but they seem to be switching the colours i.e. from red background, white text to white background, red text (on Template:Paraguay football squad 1992 Summer Olympics). Which seems pointless to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And looking at edit summary in Special:Diff/965709973, it seems like the return of a possible block evader. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering that, looks like block evasion to me. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

2000 England v Germany football match

Is 2000 England v Germany football match really notable enough for an individual article? Just because England manager Kevin Keegan resigned after the match, that doesn't mean we need an article about the match. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, content can be covered elsewhere, does not need its own page. Giant Snowman 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah IMO it's useful background context to the 1–5 match, but the unusual factors of being the last match at the stadium and resignation of the manager are not related, so it's making it out to be a more significant event than it was. Crowsus (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. On one level, a match of this nature could be fairly easily demonstrated to pass WP:GNG. All the media outlets produced detailed reports of the game, and the circumstances surrounding it as well. It also receives enduring coverage to this day, for example [13]. But obviously we don't have articles for every international that's ever played. I'd say on balance probably keep it. But I can see the arguments against as well. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting general question though, especially in the internet era. Like Aguero vs QPR in 2012, that game has had almost endless discussion and coverage since but I'm not sure we'd normally expect an article about it. Mind you, why not, if it meets policy? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The article feels generic, I mean, is the topic really the Final Wembley Stadium (1923) game ? But nether-the-less the Last matches at Wembley Stadium (1923) is enough in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a notable match and could pass GNG. Last match at the old Wembley Stadium, the resignation of Keegan. I'm sure we could find contemporary accounts in the media or books if we looked. I understand the argument around not keeping it, but I do think it's notable. I also agree with TRM, the City v QPR match is definitely worthy of an article. Can't believe there isn't one already. NapHit (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Facundo Pellistri

So, Pellistri was on loan at Alaves from Manchester United last season. He returned to United after 30th June, appeared in pre season matches and even scored a goal. He rejoined Alaves on loan after it. So I guess we should show it as separate loan spells in his infobox? I did the same earlier, however an IP thinks it should be a single loan spell. What would be the right way to show it? Let me know your opinions. Thanks in advance. Kokoeist (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Two separate loans, as he was (unofficially) active for United in between. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, these are two separate spells. Giant Snowman 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

English reserve stats

Adam Morgan scored twice this evening for Chelmsford City's reserves in the Essex and Suffolk Border Football League. Would this merit infobox inclusion? I know we include foreign players' reserve stats in their infoboxes if they're playing in countries like Spain, France, Romania, Germany, etc., but not sure on our general viewpoint on reserve stats in English players' infoboxes if the league is a part of the English pyramid (probably because reserve teams in the English pyramid isn't really a thing). NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 19:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If Chelmsford City's reserves play in the English senior football pyramid, then the stats should be displayed in the infobox. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Just added. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme - include them, if the Reserve team plays in the football pyramid. Giant Snowman 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Cristian Romero transfer confusion

Although the transfer of Cristian Romero from Atalanta to Tottenham was officially announced earlier today, the reports of the transaction from both clubs contradict each other. Atalanta claims that the transfer was a loan with option to buy, contradictory to every previous report (and every third party source, even those published after the announcement), while Tottenham makes no mention of a loan but also does not claim a definite sale or contract length. This article was recently published highlighting the issue, and I will also confidently say that there's no translation issue, as the website says exactly the same thing in Italian. How should this be dealt with? ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of miss information, it's a loan with the option to buy at the end of the season. Govvy (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the reporting is clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC are now reporting this as a permanent signing for a fee of “about £47m”[14]. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I feel like emailing Spurs now! Govvy (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: This just popped up if you're interested. https://www.football.london/tottenham-hotspur-fc/transfer-news/cristian-romero-tottenham-agreement-confirmed-21252266 Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Govvy. I'll probably add it to some of the articles to mitigate confusion. ComplexRational (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ryan Jones (footballer, born 2002)

Hey team, may someone review the above page and move to mainspace? Debuted in the EFL Cup yesterday.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings

How are the FIFA Rankings updated?

I noticed on the Canada page it just says | FIFA Rank = {{FIFA World Rankings|CAN|mdy=y}} but I don't understand where the number comes from or how this works. I wanted to change it as the ranking updated today. --MattBinYYC (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@MattBinYYC: It's updated via a template - {{FIFA World Rankings}}. The data is updated via editing Module:SportsRankings/data/FIFA World Rankings. --SuperJew (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Yeah, I found out. Too hard for me to attempt sadly. --MattBinYYC (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

GTC needs pushing over the line

Hi guys, I've had a Good Topic candidate listed for nearly three months with only four responses. I think it's pretty close to getting over the line for promotion, but I think a couple more !votes would get it there. Of course, if there's anything you think needs improving, do let me know! – Pee Jay 13:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Makouana

Could someone help me organize Béni Makouana’s infobox? I don’t know how to differentiate the youth career from the senior career in it. This guy’s early career is confusing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Done KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bryan Gil

I asked where the number is from [15] , can someone else deal with this guy before I blow a gasket! Govvy (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Tottenham announced them here RedPatch (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

meh, well, the editor keeps screwing up the page. :/ Tottenham are so slow at updating their team profile pages, bugs me out. Govvy (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

With two days to go, I would have thought every PL team would announce their squad numbers for all players by now. Also on the squad template (Template:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. squad), are we definite that it should remain as "Bryan" instead of Gil - usually, not always, player's surnames are displayed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Interim/Caretaker coach hired permanently

If a coach/manager is named the interim/caretaker manager upon the dismissal of the previous manager, then a couple of weeks later is officially named the permanent manager, should it be two separate spells or just one. I put it as just one spell at Javier Pérez (soccer coach), since it's still the same role and basically just a contract extension. However, someone just changed it to two separate instances, one as interim and one as permanent. When an assistant manager takes over for a match due to the main manager being suspended/ill/otherwise unavailable, we don't list them as the first-team manager in the infobox. RedPatch (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Two separate spells in my opinion. He was an interim, and then he was permanently named manager. Two different "status" on his job, to be honest. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Player names in squad templates

I came across this doubt recently while editing Spanish football: how should we list the player name in the squad template? Always the name, always the surname, the way the player is widely known or what his shirt actually states? I'm more in favour of the last one, so users can actually identify the player on the field through the template, but I'm not sure... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Surname, usually. Giant Snowman 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sam Kerr

Hello, a small number of IP addresses has edited the article thinking the player's time at Chelsea is over, however I don't see any news from sources about that. It should remain as 2019– but I have a feeling the IP addresses will notice and change it back to what they think. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

She has a year left on her contract (signed a 2.5 year deal mid 2019-20). All I could find were very vague rumours. --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does seem vague, certainly not definite. Violating 3RR in this situation is not ideal for experienced users either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)