Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 ← Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 Archive 114 Archive 115

Non-diffusing subcats

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category ("Players should be placed in their respective country's sub-category named in the standard Category:Countrian [footballers/soccer players] format and in the fitting position sub-category. They may also be placed in a club-specific or competition-specific sub-category if one exists."), individual articles in categories such as Category:Iran international footballers are to be their nationality-based parents as well (i.e. Category:Iranian footballers). But the situation with women is not clear. The guideline on that page is confusing and the two sentences quoted above seem pretty explicit about how footballers are to be merged by nationality even if they are otherwise subdivided thru some scheme like by participating in the Olympics or under-21 football, etc. In practice, there are many women's soccer players who are categorized by [fooian] soccer players and [fooian] women's soccer players. To use the States as an example: Beverly Yanez, Shannon Boxx, Libby Stout, Alyssa Naeher, etc. I think that this is the correct practice both from my reading of the guideline above as well as WP:GHETTO.

So I am soliciting feedback here: is this the correct way to categorize women's soccer players? If not, please note that there are many women in the international footballers scheme who are evidently supposed to be categorized in the nationality scheme as well--surely, this is an oversight but if so, the wording must be made very clear and there has to be some scheme to segregate women's international players. Also, for those arguing that they should not be integrated into the main "fooian soccer players" scheme, how do you understand WP:GHETTO above? It seems pretty clear that we are not to have a "last rung" of a category system be reserved for women. To put a finer point on it, if Jane Doe is an Austrian footballer, then she would presumably be in Category:Austrian women's footballers. But if she plays an international match, she will be in Category:Austria international footballers and that category is non-diffusing up to Category:Austrian footballers. So, once she plays in the Olympics or a FIFA tournament, she is in duplicate categories but not until then. Clearly, this is a problem. One solution is putting all footballers in the national categories (as implied above and which I am tacitly advocating) and another is creating a parallel scheme of fooian women's international footballers. (There are a few such categories but not many.)

@Kante4: who posted to my talk. Please {{Ping}} me if you want to address me directly, as I'll probably only check in occasionally on this page over the next week or so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I edited to clarify the second paragraph and would also like to offer my help in removing the women's biographies from the fooian national categories if they are seen as redundant. I think that is probably a bad idea in this case but I'll be happy to help however the consensus is here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: yes, all footballers should be in the parent nationality category as a minimum. GiantSnowman 10:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
A female player should be in the correct female category. She does not need English footballers and English women's footballers as categories. Overkill for me. Kante4 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. GiantSnowman 10:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Did you see what I wrote above as a for-instance for international footballers? How would you propose addressing this problem? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: we need a sister (pun intended) women's international category for every nation. GiantSnowman 16:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
If I'm correctly reading what Kante4 and GiantSnowman are saying, I strongly disagree. I recognize that this is a pattern which exists throughout wikipedia and has roots, but I've been bothered by it for a long time and think it is a major violation of WP:GHETTO. As it stands, if a reader (especially one not familiar with the structure of wiki subcategories) were to look at Category:Austria international footballers (or Category:England international footballers, etc), they would see a list of only men. Any women are listed on a separate page which you can only see if you look for the link at the top of the page. In fact, for England (only the second country I looked at after Austria was linked above), at the moment Category:England women's international footballers isn't even a subcategory of Category:England international footballers! I recognize that it can be useful to sort and/or label gender, but "men" should not be the default. One option would be to put Kelly Smith into both Category:England international footballers and Category:England women's international footballers. This is certainly clunky, as people have mentioned above, but the alternative is worse. How does Wayne Rooney show up as an "England international footballer" when Kelly Smith doesn't?
I believe that the best solution is to rename the current categories Category:Austria international footballers to Category:Austria men's international footballers, and then sit it on a level with Category:Austria women's international footballers.Cleancutkid (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The women's cat should very well be a subcat, maybe it can just be done so it is a subcategory? Makes it easier. Like i said, there is no need for two categories. Kante4 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The women's categories are so named because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 16:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And also matches the naming formats of the main articles (e.g. England national football team and England women's national football team). Number 57 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the lag in replying, Number 57, GiantSnowman, Kante4. In response to your comments, I would direct you to some of the contributions below from various folks in the past couple of days, particularly with regards to WP:GHETTO. As far as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes, I believe that that refers to article titles, not category names. This discussion is about how to categorize the individuals, not the names of their teams.Cleancutkid (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A key aspect of category name is alignment with the respective article. Therefore having players from the England national football team in English international footballers, and players from the English women's football team in English women's international footballers would appear to be the most appropriate form of categorisation. Also, as noted at WP:CATNAME, standard article naming procedures apply, so things like PRIMARYTOPIC are still applicable here. Number 57 22:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but to me, these categories feel more like they fall under WP:EGRS. We are specifying a career accomplishment of an individual footballer. We can look at WP:CATGENDER, where, when referring to sports, it says: "Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers should both be subcategories of Category:Golfers"Cleancutkid (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The difference here compared to most scenarios is that we have clear and relevant parent articles for the respective categories (iel.e. the national team articles) which in most cases match the categories in being differentiated by one having "women's" in the title and one not. Number 57 23:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Any more input? Kante4 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead for the New Zealand equivalent Category:New Zealand international footballers contains the addition of "Female international players should be added to Category:New Zealand women's soccer players". That category's lead contains a similar phrase regarding male internationals. ClubOranjeT 12:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cleancutkid: in response to 'but "men" should not be the default', why not? There are significantly more male footballers on the planet. ClubOranjeT 12:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @ClubOranje: Beyond my personal objections to that framing, it also violates common usage and wikipedia policy. Check out WP:GHETTO. Here's a quote: "For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category." There are many more European-American poets than African-American poets, but we don't (/certainly shouldn't on a personal level) believe that the category "American poets" without a racial descriptor refers only to White people. Although there are many more male footballers than female footballers, they are not a different species of human.
As an example, there have long been more male physicians in the world, and conception of the term "physician" often skews male (though that varies by location and era). However, we see wiki policy at work in that Category:Dutch women physicians is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Dutch physicians; the latter contains both men and women, even if men are the dominant group by numbers. It seems like there are arguments here that to follow the same pattern for footballers would be tedious and WP:OVERCAT. An alternative which would still follow WP:GHETTO would be to label both categories by gender. [My personal proposal would be to keep women in a "women footballers" category, but to not necessarily have a separate female subcategory for each football related category (women's midfielders, etc, seems over the top). This would be easier better to implement if wiki had a(n easier) way of browsing category intersections.] Cleancutkid (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Koavf: Agreed and supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for working on this. Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, the category titles simply align with the national team article name. So the Germany national football team's player category is located at Category:Germany international footballers (and the Germany women's national football team's player category is located at Category:Germany women's international footballers), while the United States men's national soccer team's player category is located at Category:United States men's international soccer players. The player category should just replace "national football team" in the article title with "international footballers" (or "national soccer team" to "international soccer players" for the US, Canada, and Australia). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I believe that the national team articles should be adjusted like this across the board (so Germany's titling should match the US), but (depending on the source/language/etc you're reading) naming conventions for these teams different ways on that, and I believe wiki policy is to follow wider usage.
The reasons that I would give for using a different naming structure for the categories than the team articles are 1) it is wiki policy not to have the "last rung" of category differentiation be gender and 2) it's not like these categories are directly copied from the team names: we change "National" in team articles to "international" in the category, so why not add "men's"?.Cleancutkid (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The men's national team article titles are a whole different discussion, but clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Changing "national" to "international" clearly is not the same as adding "men's". Either way, we are talking about people capped to totally different national teams, not just a specific subset of a profession. If the WP:COMMONNAME of the German men's team is "Germany national football team", the categories should stay consistent (with Category:Germany national football team, and therefore Category:Germany international footballers). S.A. Julio (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Standardization?

Has putting the club crests on league tables ever been discussed? We already do it for international teams and the Italian and Portugese Wikipedias have already adopted a similar system. Thoughts? Ankeitte (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please no. Kante4 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course, no. The non-free use rational rules… Asturkian (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we can't do that because the logos are copyrighted and their use on hundreds of articles would not be allowed under Fair Use. I've never seen it done for national teams, though; where have you seen that? – PeeJay 14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess he is referring to flags? Which are very different and usually in the public domain. In addition to being a copyright violation, using the crests would be a purely decorative and probably a WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I also presumed flags. In most cases I love seeing badges etc and thought the Italian display was quite smart when I first saw it, but I know by now that the majority of editors on Wikipedia frown on it, plus the copyright issues, plus the loading time, plus unnecessary. Crowsus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Portuguese Wikipedia is a mess. SLBedit (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It is sad English wikipedia still had the most article, full set of rule (e.g., comply with law on copyright) and management, and relative strict to citing and notability. The only thing i like in other wiki was German one with pending version all over the place, that is less workload on ip patrolling. Just want to say other wiki have set of culture, or fault in management, so thing can be done in other language, does not mean saying should we do it in English wiki also. Instead, with bilingual skill, should write more well cited article in other wiki and bring good management culture to that version. Matthew_hk tc 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Runner-up honours (again)

Saksapoiss (talk · contribs) has removed Nélson Semedo's runner-up honour in the 2017 Supercopa de España, twice, without discussion. Then, in a discussion I started at the user's talk page, he wrote that I have "a different opinion than the majority of Wikipedia users, then you should be the one starting a discussion" here. What majority? Is there a consensus on this matter? SLBedit (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As I explained later, I reflect the majority on the articles of top footballers not having runner-up medals in their honour section. Saksapoiss (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
"Monkey see, monkey do" (I'm not implying that you are a monkey) - I only add and leave runner-up honours for competitions players didn't win/haven't won. SLBedit (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Nope, he has it wrong, if competition is top level and not a friendly comp and the runners up medal has citation then it can be kept. Supercopa de España runner up medals are fine as long as they have citations. Govvy (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(Just commenting) Isn't quite absurd to consider a honour to finish as runner-up in a competition of two? Asturkian (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The main gist of the honours is to list the achievements generally these are medals won or collected, runner up in a cup comp still collects a medal! So I don't understand what you're referring to as "absurd". Govvy (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Runner up in a not notable pre season friendly competition, is very different to runner up in a notable friendly competition on a national stage. Koncorde (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Supercopa de España is not a pre-season friendly. What is your point? SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying they were, I think he meant in general. But there is a stigma associated with super cups in Britain where they are referred to by some people as "glorified friendlies", implying they arent official games. This is in no way official though and on an official basis, they are competitive games, so if anyone is saying otherwise, they are wrong. This applies to all super cups, from the Supercopa de Esapana to the Community Shield to the Supercoppa Italiana etc Davefelmer (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, what I was referring to is that the equivalent competition in the UK is, as DaveFelmer said, often described as a "glorified friendly" (which is actually its roots) as an invitational competition for charity. However it is recognised as an official competition even if it is actually an invitational friendly, for charity. Koncorde (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

White Hart Lane

I was wondering and what people think if the article should be renamed to White Hart Lane (1899 to 2017), because you're going to have new White Hart Lane stadium article, which will probably be named after a sponsor, with maybe White Hart Lane being redirected to that. Thoughts people? Govvy (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but perhaps the current White Hart Lane should be renamed similarly to the Old Wembley? R96Skinner (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It's exactly the same case as in San Mamés Stadium. Practically same location, but a completely different stadium. I agree the new stadium must be differenciated. In this case, stadiums are named by its inauguartion year (San Mamés Stadium (1913) and San Mamés Stadium (2013). Asturkian (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I prefer the San Mames solution to the Wembley / The Old Den solution, since the historic stadiums were never known as old anything while they existed, in contrast to Old Trafford and a few others. In my opinion the old stadium should 'own' the White Hart Lane redirect as almost every existing link will be to the old place, but there will be editors more experienced who can make judgement on that.Crowsus (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
My bad in the way I stylised it, but the Old Wembley is named like the San Mamés: Wembley Stadium (1923). I agree with both, Asturkian and Crowsus. R96Skinner (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
So White Hart Lane (1899) would be preferred with White Hart Lane being directed to that? Govvy (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be treated the same as any new ground, irrespective of location. It would be nice if the club's did nice things like giving them Roman numerals where the name remains. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
White Hart Lane (1899) would probably be the best title, with all incoming links fixed if "White Hart Lane" will be a redirect/article title/disambiguation page in the future. Though if the new stadium will not be known as White Hart Lane, a move might not be necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget that we don't use sponsored names for stadiums...GiantSnowman 16:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
...except that we do, for several grounds in the Premier League alone. However I appreciate that this is because they have never been widely known by any other name, the exception being the Man City stadium which is referred to by its non-sponsor name. Nevertheless, if Spurs new stadium gets a sponsor as soon as it opens, the precedent seems to be that its article should be titled by the sponsored name. I (like many others) was aware of Arsenal's new ground being called Ashburton Grove for many years before it opened, but it has been known as the Emirates since it was under construction and it seems appropriate that the article is so named. Spurs will probably be the same, and using the sponsor would also prevent any linking confusion with the White Hart Lane article as we have been discussing, even if the new site may be known by that same term until a sponsor is confirmed. And you know they will get it sponsored, the clubs seem to have a grudging acceptance to leave historic stadiums alone (Sports Direct Arena Hahaha) but as soon as it's a new ground it's fair game to be named the Under Armor Bowl or whatever.Crowsus (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm on my own here, but I don't see the need for a separate article. The new ground is on the same site with significant overlap, and I think we should try to cover both in a single article. Number 57 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Is any of the original structure being used in the new stadium? Seems to me like they completely levelled the old ground and rebuilt from scratch, just like Wembley. – PeeJay 17:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there are numerous grounds where there are none of the original structures. For example Dean Court (where they also rotated the pitch when rebuilding it) or Meadow Lane (which had three stands demolished and rebuilt in 1992 and the other one in 1994). Personally I also don't see why we have two articles for Wembley Stadium either. Number 57 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Rebuilding the same ground is different to building a new one, even if fundamentally the same amount of bricks and mortar is replaced. It's about the "spirit" of the game in some cases. Others, like Wembley, it's the end of an era and retirement and rebirth (a la Phoenix Clubs). It's like the old Triggers Broom joke. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's open to interpretation and debate, but I think those mentioned should be considered gradual rebuilds (Easter Road in Edinburgh is now entirely different to its structure prior to 1992, and Tynecastle is finishing its last stand now, but to me they're definitely the same ground), whereas Wembley was closed for 7 years (for whatever reason!) and they emphasised it as a new stadium, albeit in the same place.Crowsus (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Dean Court isn't a gradual rebuild. It was demolished all in one go in 2001 and rebuilt with a different pitch orientation (they didn't actually finish it in time for the new season and Bournemouth had to play at Dorchester for a few games). I would also struggle with the description of Meadow Lane as a "gradual" rebuild given that three stands were done in one summer. Number 57 18:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Same with Priestfield Stadium - there's literally nothing left in 2017 of the structure of the stadium I first went to in 1983, but nobody views it as a different stadium -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
didn't know that about Dean Court, but as someone who is generally in favour of rebuilt stadium articles being split up, this looks like a decent candidate to possibly have two articles, or at least more attention should be given to separating the existing article, perhaps an Infobox for the old ground's details since they are all different and there is a definite 'before and after' point? However, as you can tell, I don't know enough about the stadium to go fiddling about with its article myself.Crowsus (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Separate articles would be a terrible idea – pretty much everyone considers it the same stadium (it only has one entry in the Ultimate Directory of English & Scottish Football League Grounds). A separate infobox is also unnecessary. Number 57 22:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Levy says new ground not called WHL [1].--Egghead06 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
there we are then, if it's going to have a different name it should get a different article (i think it should anyway, being an entirely new structure) and there should be no problems linking if the articles don't have similar names. Crowsus (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, there's no right or wrong answer as to whether a completely rebuilt stadium should be considered the same venue or not, it's a matter of interpretation. So, for our purposes, we need to be guided by what sources say, and whether they regard it as one or two venues. In the case of Wembley, it is widely referred to as two grounds, commentators will talk about a game at "the Old Wembley" etc., plus there is a huge amount of information to be covered as well, so a split also makes practical sense. Dean Court, as already stated, is an example of a ground that is widely considered to still be the same despite a complete rebuild and even the pitch being completely moved. In Scotland, there are similar examples, which fit in with the sources: Ibrox – new ground built overlapping the original, but considered two grounds; Gayfield – similar, but generally considered the same. I think the same point about the amount of notable information that can be potentially sourced stands with these examples, too. I think flexibility on the issue is more appropriate than enforcing a hard and fast "rule". Jellyman (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it also depends on coverage, and in minor role by the shape and design of the structure itself. Juventus Stadium and Stadio delle Alpi was basically on the same land, but the coverage of the former as a club-owned, no running lane stadium received a wide coverage. At this point we just wait the new stadium was built and start a potential split discussion in the future. Also it depends on actual content. Government Stadium and Hong Kong Stadium was on the same ground, but the spirit of the old stadium was the Golden era of Hong Kong football, while the new stadium was seldom used as a regular ground. The former actually received much media coverage, while the latter was received media coverage on another way (financial failure and poor grass), but the current content was not worth to split it. Matthew_hk tc 13:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Rochinha

Can anyone please assist in this chap's article? I browsed BBC SPORT for a ref for his Championship debut (written in storyline), came out empty. Strangely enough, the search engine yielded results for other matches, even from seasons BEFORE (!), but not for that from March 2015.

Attentively (if someone thinks that storyline bit must go for lack of a ref, please revert and sorry for any inconvenience, but I refuse to be "defeated" here because certainly a ref must be lurking around the web somewhere, only TWO YEARS since that game) --Quite A Character (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Second link on my google search. Little else in English appears to exist, but seems to be a fair amount in Portuguese. Koncorde (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Koncorde, as neat and reliable (i'm pretty positive) as can be, thanks man! I'm retrieving it to the piece now :) --Quite A Character (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Standings - withdrawn, excluded teams with annulled results

I'm starting to get close to a WP:3RR situation with an editor in our disagreement what should be displayed in the classifications table. In particular it deals with the current 2017–18_Ukrainian_Second_League Group A standings. The issue is that FC Ternopil withdrew from the competition and if it is done during the first round of the competition the Professional Football League of Ukraine League Regulation stipulates that the team's results are annulled and that the team is removed from the standings - as if they did not compete. The reference that this article uses for the standings is the official standings from the PFL (in Ukrainian) Second League Group A. I contended that for WP:V if the article is using the official standings as a source then its should reflect exactly as that reference provides and not additional information no matter how pretty it looks or gee-whiz that's nice that its in the article or my edit beats you edit etc.

I don't need this tit-for-tat sparring about this issue, so I would like to get some feedback and consensus about this situation so all can move on.

The difference in the table standings is as follows: Difference between the standings Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Brazilian state leagues

I was wondering about how the infobox can be misleading when it comes to Brazilian football. I mean, there's a whole bunch of players who are actually in the first division (or even in Europe) who came from lower league teams (which only played state championships) and their stats are 0/0.

I was thinking: can't we allow our users to include the state league stats only for those teams who played exclusively in the state leagues during his period? A good example of what I'm trying to say is Rafael Longuine: he only played outside the state championships with LASK Linz, Santos and Coritiba. His other clubs were all "regional". MYS77 ✉ 16:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not possible to mix the state and regional stats in the infobox. As you certainly know, there are often instances where players during one season in Brazil play both, national and regional championships. Adding the full stats of the regional ones for players that only played in the regional championships would create a mess. A rule must be coherent and applicable the same way to all players. I understand the issue you bring, the O (O) stats end up sort of missleading, however, there is one solution. Next to the zeros adding a note in which the regional league stats would be added with the explanation. FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
See for instance the notes at Leandro Netto de Macedo infobox stats. Another soolution often used by editors is to make a stats table where you add a column for regional league stats, as in Juliano Roberto Antonello. FkpCascais (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: Yeah, but it's misleading in either ways. However, foradejogo.net often lists the stats of the state championships when the club's only "division" during the year was that tournament.
I have to guess that our national football is messed up, when compared to the European leagues. Let's wait to see if any other user drop some lines in here. MYS77 ✉ 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais. I think we have to keep the infobox standardized - i.e., only national league matches are shown. It is certainly possible to add tables within the article to show the player's state league/cup statistics. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates about year in Spanish football

Hello. A user is changing all templates about year in Spanish football. [2] Do you agree with the change? Xaris333 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how they justify the statement that List of Spanish football transfers summer 1981 is not relevant to Spanish football. Very strange. Number 57 20:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That is about WP:EXISTING [3]. Are 4 differents edits. Xaris333 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:EXISTING appears to be widely misunderstood and misused. Lots of editors seem to think it means you can't have any redlinks in templates, whereas the reality is that you can if it's a set of articles or on an article that is probably going to happen at some point. Number 57 21:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are multiple issues here:
  1. Linking to other templates. This should not be done. This takes the reader out of mainspace, and into template space. This is not where a reader expects to be.
  2. We shouldn't have redlinks in navigation templates. If it is a redlink, it doesn't aid navigation, which is the sole purpose of a navbox. The same way we don't have redlinks in "See also" sections. WP:WTAF. And the points Number 57 makes regarding the exceptions for allowing redlinks are not relevant in this case, as there is no "set" to take into account, and it seems unlikely that anyone will be writing List of Spanish football transfers summer 1981 any time soon (although perhaps someone will now, just to make a point).
  3. Unlinked text. Useless in a navbox. See above.
  4. Listing competitions which are not directly related to the football season for that country of that year. The UEFA cup or similar of that year is only tangentially related to the country. Because a team from the country in question happened to play in the tournament does NOT make it relevant or suitable for navbox inclusion.
I think that's all the issues, but Xaris333 also keeps adding article categories to these navboxes, which is against WP:CAT#T. Only template categories should be added. I would also like to point out that before bringing this issue up here, Xaris333 actually encouraged me to make these edits!!! --woodensuperman 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
So you think are correct or not? I think they are not. And please answer to Number 57 about WP:EXISTING. Xaris333 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. And see point 2. --woodensuperman 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kareem Kazeem

How's this for an obscure player? Article created exactly ten years, two months and two days ago, i would like to bring two related topics to the "table" regarding his article:

1 - any Fulham fans out there? Both Portuguese websites (he played ages in the country) only speak of him as being with the Cottagers from 2006 onwards, but this source i found from April 2005 (http://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2005/april/25/diop-to-return) attests to the contrary; any club almanacs, something to source his youth spell there? My search at BBC Sport yielded nothing...

2 - his spell in Wales, seems to be correct per this page (please see here http://www.monmouthtownfc.com/sample-page/players-201213/), but methinks some newspaper articles or akin would look neater on page. If nothing can be found, this will have to do i guess.

Thank you very much in advance for whatever can be provided, keep up the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing confirmed, I found a few other reserve reports from 2005, a few are just a squad list and as you know sometimes even the club forget who has left the club when using the list from the start of the season. But this one mentions him specifically coming on for Malbranque,and this is from West Ham, also mentions him actually playing. So it seems certain he was there in 2005 but nothing to show he arrived for the start of 2004—05. Those reports all refer to him as Kazeem Kareem; this from 2009 is a trial with Girona, and refers to him as Kareem Kazeem. Who knows which is correct, I was going to mention that the common name field is different to the spelling of the title but maybe that's why. Not easy to spot either! The Soccerway link says it's in the name Kareem Kazeem, but when you actually go to the page it is spelled Kazeem Kareem! Just to muddy the waters further, you've probably noticed the Portuguese article spells the name Karim Kazeem and has a different year of birth! But its completely unsourced anyway. Finally a small suggestion too maybe change the box link to a piped one for Fulham F.C. Academy since he never made the first team and was still only 19 when he left.Crowsus (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Kazeem is a given name (to my admittedly lay knowledge). Kareem is both a given and second name. However some cultures do put the names in reverse in any case. Most English primary sources seem to go with Kazeem Kareem. Koncorde (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

names of team articles

It seems to me that we use the "official" name for teams as their article name. I'm assuming that this has been discussed as it is an established consensus, but after looking over WP:COMMONNAME which says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.", I was wondering why we do this? --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY. We'd end up in a right mess if we applied common name as some clubs would require disambiguation and others wouldn't. Worth remembering that WP:COMMONNAME is not the most important naming criteria, as many editors seem to think it is. It's one of five equally important WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Number 57 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair. Thanks for the reply - I was just wondering, not looking to make a great big change ;) Interestingly, from what I've seen on Hebrew Wiki, there the naming of clubs is by common name and then it is indeed as you say - some have to be disambiguated and some don't. Though, as we pipeline nearly all clubs' names anyways I'm not sure how much of a difference that actually makes.
Regarding players, should COMMONNAME be a more important factor, or should they be consistently under their official/legal name? --SuperJew (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is more important for players. Oftentimes, a player's full/official/legal name may be unrecognisable compared to their common name (see Givanildo Vieira de Sousa) so it wouldn't make sense to use their official name as the title of their article. Furthermore, since most players only usually have one COMMONNAME, there's little room for debate about what that name should be. With clubs, however, you can get multiple, different but related COMMONNAMEs (see "Inter Milan", "Internazionale") which may have different usages in different locales. And in countries where a Latin alphabet is not used, which transliteration should we go with? Is it Gabala or Qabala? This is why I think we should just follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) and use the full, official name as given by the English-language version of the club's website. – PeeJay 12:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If we went with common names, so many would need to be disambiguated (Liverpool (football club), Gillingham (football club), etc) that it would really be no advantage over using the F.C. suffix. And I certainly wouldn't want us to ever have an article called West Brom (football club)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
many club don't have actual English official name (such as Athlitiki Enosi Larissa F.C.), some name in their Latin character still have some sort of information to the reader such as F.C. Internazionale Milano. However, such as Crvena Zvezda or the romanization of the Chinese name of the Chinese football club, does not mean anything to other reader other than what they sound. So, regarding the name, especially for the club in non-English world, look like case by case basis on common name or official name in their native language. Matthew_hk tc 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In relation to this topic, I should point out this naming convention, which we adopted a few years ago. Unfortunately, with respect to articles such as Inter Milan, it appears to be getting ignored, but it would be nice if we could at least try to follow some sort of naming convention for sports teams. – PeeJay 12:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Elneny

Hi, any views on this move? Most sources refer to him as Elneny, and the editor who made the move has used different surnames in different places. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems the Premier League, soccerway and soccerbase list him as Elneny and nft lists him as El-Nenny. Elneny seems the right call to me. --SuperJew (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Same as SuperJew. Elneny for sure. Arsenal website has it like that. Also, I know shirt names mean little most times, but if we're talking about how his surname is styled then he himself has it as Elneny. R96Skinner (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I'd like go with Elneny, even if the direct transliteration may be slightly different. Not sure if it would would clutter up the lead section too much to include the alternative spellings (El Neny, El-Neny and El-Nenny all appear including in refs)? Crowsus (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

pinging @Rozy74:, the user who made the change on the page, so they can bring their arguments too. --SuperJew (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Look like the case of Mpenza or M'Penza. El-Neny is the common translation of Arabic (just like Al Ahly SC, Al-Ahly) but if source skipping the hyphen (and n), so may be Elneny should be used. Matthew_hk tc 08:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
for the alternative spelling, unless it was very different just like Bojinov was the Italian romanization of Божинов, which the standard romanization from Bulgarian to English was a different one, i don't think it need to be mentioned. (hyphen, double n or one n?)
and even it was different in Bojinov' case, seem he played as Bojinov in Italy, Portugal and England as shirt name, only some document use the proper romanization, so it is not worth to mentioned as no need to mentioned all the name in different language, but only notable name in English world. Matthew_hk tc 10:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The term El or Al just means The, his name can actually be pronounced as Al Neny in Classical Arabic but it's El Neny in Egyptian Arabic. His official facebook page has El-Neny since the El should be separated.
The other thing is El Neny or El Nenny. Neny is one word which means eye pupil, it can be written both ways that's why i had Nenny also written in the pronunciation section as the player has it in his twitter handle. --Rozy74 Rozy74 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Converting all citations link to Soccerbase using {{soccerbase season}} and new template for citations only link to plays

Greetings.

I am now tying to do a task, for all citations link to Soccerbase, converting to {{soccerbase season}} (please see the bot request). I find some citations has no season id specified. I think that may be it is a good idea to create a new template {{soccerbase player citation}} or something like it for the cases. Are there any good suggestions? --Kanashimi (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the request. As I understand it, (@Iggy the Swan:?) the request wasn't to convert all citations linking to Soccerbase to use {{soccerbase season}}. It was to convert cite-web-format citations with a season id to use {{soccerbase season}}.
As I said at the bot request thread, if people want to convert citations that reference the top level player page at Soccerbase, i.e. the one without a season id, it'd be better to add that functionality to {{soccerbase}}, as has already been done at similar templates such as {{NFT player}}. So it can be used not only as an external link, as currently, but also as a citation with an accessdate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Struway2: Thank you. I am thinking that may be we can reform the {{soccerbase}}, and let it has the citation-mode output as {{NFT player}}, so we can use {{soccerbase}} to indicate citation of a player as well? --Kanashimi (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In general, yes, I think that adding citation-mode output to {{soccerbase}} would be a good thing. But that would be a different job from what the bot request asked for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. --Kanashimi (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

FIFPro World XI

Hey guys, I was wondering, FIFPro has been giving 2nd-5th team XIs for the past 4 years, you guys have thought of putting them on? That means on both Honours lists and in a article for each year of FIFPro World XI. I think it would be a nice way to honor players that been on 2nd team forever and don't get that "recognition" on their honours. I wanted to ask here since I'm not sure how everyone would agree of this, but I honestly think there is only to gain doing that, with so many players not going to the 1st team because of the likes of Messi and Ronaldo but could have the other "teams" recognition.

The Sandman (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals

Can I propose List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals is reviewed so to include current players. By making this ex-players only, players such as Wayne Rooney and Billy Sharp are ommitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.148.96 (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. I wasn't previously aware of this article and can't see any logical reason why only retired players should be included. I also think it's bizarre that the article has England and Scotland combined - I would think separate articles would be better -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with ChrisTheDude. R96Skinner (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude and R96Skinner: Started a split discussion on the article's talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The decision to exclude current players is so the list doesn't become out-of-date... GiantSnowman 20:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense, TBH. By that logic we should exclude current players from all stats lists. And surely excluding current players is actually contributing to making the list out-of-date, because it isn't an up-to-date list of all players who meet the criteria......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. And it still gets outdated every time someone retires and no one thinks to update this (rather odd in that it combines two leagues) list. And why would someone even refer to it in it's current state? I'd want to know who scored the most, not who scored the most-not-counting-other-players-who-have-scored-a-lot. ClubOranjeT 07:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, as the inconspicuous note at the top confirms, it's incomplete anyway. The RSSSF source for the English leagues only goes down to 239 goals. Some in the range 200–238 have been added, don't know if they all have, but the ref seems to have just been copied over, e.g. George Elliott's name doesn't appear on that source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
.....and the RSSSF ref is 12 years old! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just noticed the "companion" article, List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances. It lists 771 appearances for John Burridge, which firstly doesn't match the infobox in his article, but secondly indicates that the figures (at least for him) are for appearances in England and Scotland *combined*. That makes no sense at all IMO - if we're going to combine apps in those two countries then surely we'd also need to include apps players might have made in Wales/Ireland/the USA/Outer Mongolia....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed the name of the article itself is gibberish? How is this is a list of players "in" England / Scotland? Clearly it's just a list of players who have made 200 appearances in the English / Scottish leagues. Seems a somewhat arbitrary list in any case. Koncorde (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferring F.C.

Is Ferring F.C. a club worthy of a Wikipedia article? I don't think they've ever played in an FA cup competition or at Level 10 of the English football league pyramid? Kivo (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

They don't seem to meet the criteria. Take it to AfD. Number 57 13:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Two loan spells separated by 11 days

I would appreciate some advice on the interpretation of long-standing consensus on loan spells in the infobox. When a club announces that a player has returned following the expiration of their loan spell but has "rejoined" the same club 11 days later, how should this be presented in the infobox? Many thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say separate spells, personally. R96Skinner (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Caption for infobox image

User:Fleets and I have been having a long-running disagreement about the caption under the image in the infobox for Sadio Mané. Rather than having the caption under the image immediately visible, he has replaced it with the code "{{small|Mané lining up for Red Bull Salzburg}}" which results in the caption becoming visible only if you hover over the image (on a PC or laptop) or click on the image (on a tablet or phone). Is this acceptable? IMHO, the caption should be immediately visible to all users. As he and I are both in danger of being blocked for edit-warring, I will stand back from reverting him again, but would appreciate the opinion of this project. (I was of the opinion that his method should only be used for the alternative caption - as with Duncan Edwards - to assist those with impaired vision.) 78.147.172.107 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

IP hopper, who jumped to a new IP address, who does not deny being a previously banned editor. I am happy for Football to revert, but not a sockpuppet.Fleets (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have never been banned, I am not a sockpuppet and my IP is changed by my service provider without my control. As I say, stop the abuse and deal with the substance of the query. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Caption should be visible straight away. Kante4 (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it can be, not necessarily, should be. The wider understanding leads towards should though. Not definitively, but in order to help those of limited understanding. Please feel free to revert, just didn't want a recovering sockpuppet to get away with murder.Fleets (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see the Template:Infobox football biography documentation, which is the same as all other Template:Infobox person-based infoboxes right across the Wiki. The |image= shouldn't use the [[File:Sadio Mané.jpg|etc etc]] markup at all. It uses just the bare filename, in this case Sadio Mané.jpg, and then there are separate parameters for |image_size=, |caption=, |alt=. The infobox decides the formatting.
The MoS page they cited only allows to omit the caption if it's just the page name. If it says anything else at all, as in this case "Mané lining up for Red Bull Salzburg", it's a "Short caption" which belongs in the caption parameter formatted as |caption = Mané lining up for Red Bull Salzburg cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The file name could change, but it's cool. Also the caption could have a year too. The issue was with the sock, not necessarily the MOS.Fleets (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Struway2. It's documented. Boldly adjusted. @Fleets:, I understand your frustration, if you have an issue with the IP, SPI is the appropriate place to discuss. ClubOranjeT 10:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Promotion/Relegation Play offs

Hi. Are the promotion/relagation play off matches considered as part of league appearances and hence can be added in the league matches in the infobox? RRD (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally they are not, no. I believe the reason being a number of statistics sources do not count them as such. Macosal (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No, these stats should not go in the infobox, but can be included in the "other" column of career statistic tables. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the two above. R96Skinner (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Kante4 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Miodrag Belodedici

Like so many others i brought forth in the past, the 1990/91 European Cup squad template for Red Star Belgrade found at the bottom of his article (and all of his teammates I suppose) is overkill, no? Definitely TfD material, is this a correct assumption?

Attentively, glad to help out --Quite A Character (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we have a long-standing consensus that we only keep historic squadlist templates for international tournaments, not club ones. Number 57 22:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Crociati Noceto

Hello, Blackcat here, from Italy. I casually noticed that on en.wiki the abovementioned club figures as still active. Actually it was discontinuted and dissolved in 2016 and is no longer affiliated to the Italian football federation (see here). Regards, -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

If anyone is interested, there is an ongoing discussion on whether a club's Twitter account can be a valid external link. Some addition input to this discussion would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 57 11:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

citation question

Every so often people make the =work or =publisher an internal link, I am inclined to delink these because you can amass a load of citations linking to one page like the BBC article or BBC Sport, I would go on the grounds of WP:overlink, but what about the first citation, before the rest of the same nature should that be delinked also or kept? Govvy (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not needed at all IMHO, unless somebody has queried the reliability of the source... GiantSnowman 11:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
K, shall remove the first in the series then, cheers, Govvy (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's useful for navigation and I think it's pointless to have the first linked but not the rest, as people don't necessarily read citations in order. The info needs to be available from any citation you look at. IMO they should all be linked. --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems an awful lot of work to "unlink" a citation apart from number one, when we all know that citations can move around an article over extended periods. The Citation guidance doesn't say to remove it, it also doesn't say that it needs to be wikilinked. Actively unlinking, where another user may be actively linking (such as via a Bot or plugin) seems to me like an utter waste of your time and effort Govvy. Koncorde (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I am going by the rules on Overlink, citations are a sinner in that department. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I would link lesser known source such as regional newspaper or even using Template:ill. Such as The Chinese Times was actually different from China Times, or China Mail to Chinese Mail. For navigation, outside the citation, i would just link the article once, inside the same paragraph (under the same sub-title), i don't think the need to link it again. Same logic applies to citation. It is easy to find the first wiki link by Control + F function of the browser, so i don't think there is a need to link each publisher in the citation. Matthew_hk tc 12:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
By that logic Matthew_hk, we could say it is easy to type any term into the searchbox so maybe we shouldn't link at all? --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: From WP:OVERLINK (my bolding): Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, --SuperJew (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - From WP:OVERLINK (my bolding): Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, GiantSnowman 12:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Yes it is helpful to readers when the link is repeated in citations as they do not check citations in order (if even checking them all). --SuperJew (talk)
How many readers do you know who actually check citations? GiantSnowman 12:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd say around 95% of the readers I know check citations. --SuperJew (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
But when you have the same link to say BBC Sport 40 times or more! Seems a clear violation of Overlink to me. There seems to be an over use on Hugo Lloris linked to Ligue de Football Professionnel in citations to me. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Govvy: It only looks that way if you are looking only at the reference list (which only an editor would do). While actually reading the article you would only look at a handful of citations which would interest you. --SuperJew (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: That's true. A vandal in Pato that change the publisher in citation from Milan to FK Partizan, was not discovered for few years. [4] Few link in citation better. Matthew_hk tc 12:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: They also changed the section header and link from Milan to FK Partizan. Also I have a feeling that if Milan wasn't linked they still would of changed the text.. How is this relevant to the discussion? --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The vandal of the citation itself stay for 6 years until July 2017. So, i doubt how many people check citation, given Pato is a popular article. Matthew_hk tc 13:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This vandalism would stay or not stay regardless of if the text is linked, so I still don't see the relevance to this discussion about linking. --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Because the long-standing nature of the vandalism shows that readers don't check citations. GiantSnowman 13:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Or they do, but don't edit. Or this specific link went unnoticed. Kind of funny that you're making consequences based on one example. --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Well this has gone off on a tangent. This is not just a wikipedia football issue. Citations are used across the entire sphere of wikipedia. We are not crystal balls about user habits, and nor should we be trying to presume that people do or don't check citations (or that it even has any relevance to this discussion). If you click (or hover) on a reference within the body it will take you to the reflinks or present to you a summary of the citation. This means you can, or are, or do review such references in isolation - in which case the wikilinking is singular. WP:OVERLINK is about flooding the body of a page with wikilinks for every single irrelevant term, or duplication of wikilinks, which makes the reading of the content difficult, and subsequent editing more complex. Deciding removing publisher details from a reference based on misinterpretation of wiki policy after two replies on a single project page is rash. Koncorde (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem of overlink was not only on the article itself, it also affect the target on "what link here". It is pointless to link to very popular site such as BBC Sport, while the document of Template:cite web even stress no need to wikilink place name, but ambiguously using the wording "wikilink if relevant" for the publisher. I doubt the need of linking every publisher. Matthew_hk tc 14:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
There may not be a need, but there is an option. When people are using citation bots and scripts to add cited they are not checking whether their citation is the first in the list or not. The argument being made was that the link should be provided on only the first citation, then secondary arguments that nobody checks them so they aren't required, then tertiary arguments about overlook etc Those are massive assumptions being made for the entire of wikipedia by what is a very niche sports project. The examples even given by cite web is for the New York Times, an organisation of significance alongside the BBC. The notability of the source is not a factor in identifying its "relevant". And by relevant, it is not ambiguous, the meaning of the word is meant to mean in that context "if the publisher exists" i.e. there are many cite webs that can be provided that do not have a significant publisher, and fewer still who have a publisher that can be wikilinked.
Wikilinked publishers is far from controversial as to require dedicated unlinking as being suggested here. Whether you link or not in your cites is up to you, but unlinking after the fact is a waste of time. Koncorde (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
hmm, every time I ask a question of late it feels like I am opening up a can of worms, I look at citations as single and as a whole. I can't see why you would repeat the same process in linking to the same article a multitude of times in the references. Yes you can hover over one, then you can hover over the next one. But for the more obscure citations I can understand having a link, it's for the bigger news outlets, BBC, CNN, ESPN, people know these news agencies and surely there has to be more common-sense when writing a citation so as not to have multiple internal wiki links across the board. Govvy (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is it's not just one person is adding citations - so it's not a simple case of a single person multi linking, as often citations build up over years, they change order, they go out of date etc. However soke people do multi link by way of how they go about their work. If someone is reusing the same basic structure, then they may cut and paste the same source and change URL or page number or smaller details but keep larger more common information unchanged.
In the end, actively removing such stuff, as I've said, is a waste of your time. Koncorde (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I started adding proper refs (having settled for half finished ones when I first began editing here, bad me) I have tended to use citations as I felt it was giving a little credit to the source (as if they care). Recently I have started doing it less, both to avoid overlinking and out of laziness where I would have had to pipe it to the correct article. Certsinly it's less work not to link so happy to do that, but as some have said a nice I do think there's merit in linking to any obscure and/or foreign (but legitimate) source for clarification. However, I really don't see the point of actively unlinking all existing refs unless they're actually wrong. It would be a thankless and fairly needless task! Crowsus (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

English top flight appearances

In light of Gareth Barry imminently breaking Ryan Giggs' Premier League appearance record, I wondered if we have a table or list anywhere of those who have made the most appearances in English football's top division overall (yes, football existed before 1992, shocking I know!). Football records in England mentions that Peter Shilton holds the record with 849. Giggs has 672 (632 in the Premier League and 40 in the old First Division) and Barry is about to reach 633, but more than that I don't know. Do we have a top 10 or top 20 or whatever? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances. Although, as per the discussion at Talk:List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals and the discussion further up this page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#List_of_footballers_in_England_and_Scotland_by_number_of_league_goals if you add Gareth Barry you will get reverted as he has not retired yet, and apparently it is a list of most-appearances-not-counting-other-players-who-may-have-played-even-more-games. ClubOranjeT 19:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why English and Scottish leagues have been combined there. Part of the same nation (UK) but completely separate in terms of footballing administration. --Jameboy (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Jameboy There's a discussion about splitting the goals article here, and I assume that if that one gets split, then List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances will be too. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
To me it's obvious it should be split. It's also obvious that the reason it was combined was for simplicity, due to one of the main sources being the Neil Brown site which lists the player appearances and goalscorers for clubs in the English and the Scottish league and then gives a grand total. Understandable given the amount of of player movement between those leagues, but it wouldn't be very difficult to differentiate between the two systems and produce two accurate lists. Crowsus (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion on that is over there, so it would be best if any opinions were added to that discussion. ClubOranjeT 07:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Włodzimierz Smolarek

Can someone please help out in the display of this gentleman's chart of international goals? I doubled the RSSSF source to there so that the content would not be challenged/removed, but in horrible display (not only did i worsen the chart outline, it looks like only the LAST goal is sourced).

Sorry for any inconvenience, thanks in advance for whatever help that can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-FIFA nationalities in club squads

Given that the note above a club squad states that "Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules", is it right that players such as Peter Vincenti (Coventry City) and Brett Pitman (Portsmouth) should be listed under the flag of Jersey? Under FIFA eligibility rules this is impossible, so either the statement or the flag is misleading and must be changed. Searching through the archives I found this (obviously the situation with Kosovo has changed) and this but nothing seems to have been done about the matter. As I said before, I believe that one or the other surely has to be changed, but which should it be? Or am I going against some other WP:CON that I haven't come across yet?--Asterixtintin (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There is only one nationality UK, but i am not sure under the agreement of England, Scotland Wales and N.Ireland FA, Jersey-born footballer would eligible to any of the team or not. Moreover, did any crown dependencies born person were UK citizen or not? I would rather use Jersey. Matthew_hk tc 05:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Seem Jersey passport was not exactly the BC passport, as well as Jersey is not part of UK by some sense, so should be use Jersey flag. Any territory that have some sort of sovereignty but not a member of FIFA, does not mean the flag can't be used. Just Jersey's Crown dependencies was arguable as a true separate nation or not. Matthew_hk tc 17:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
My argument is that it is misleading to say that the flag represents FIFA national team, as it quite clearly doesn't. Personally I think that the no flag would be better for players who haven't made at least a youth level national team appearance.--Asterixtintin (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It's fine as it is. GiantSnowman 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
agreed. FIFA eligibility rules can applies to non-member of FIFA. the rule just simply state the eligibility was based on POB/nationality/parent POB/naturalization. England and Jersey by nationality fall in the FIFA rule for common nationality (British), the FAs inside the nationality decide the rule. But since Jersey is not part of England nor any other Home Nations, by geographical border (POB), leave it as it (using Jersey) is totally fine and logical. It looks slippy slope that because of the FIFA eligibility rules statement and the use of Jersey flag, and to the conclusion that it will misrepresent Jersey is a member of FIFA. Matthew_hk tc 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S., if the question was on Guadeloupe, i would say replace with France flag (Guadeloupe was part of France), while Tahiti as Tahiti . Matthew_hk tc 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In footballing terms, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are part of England – they are all county football associations under the auspices of the English FA. Number 57 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It may need exact copy of the Home Nations Rule or other citation to verify. Jersey FA was funded by the FA, but not sure about eligibility to national team. Matthew_hk tc 20:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sightly offtopic. the statement As a Channel Islander, he was eligible for any of the Home Nations teams in Matt Le Tissier should be removed or not? Both Le Tissier and Graeme Le Saux had represented England as well as trained by English clubs, so by eligibility, he may through the theoretical "Channel Islander were eligible to England team (and only?)" OR through common nationality AND English youth product? OR through bloodline? Matthew_hk tc 20:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Why would it be removed? It's correct. As UK nationals but not belonging to one of the countries with a national team, they can choose to play for any of them (see Maik Taylor). It just so happens that they chose England due playing there, and it being the strongest of the four options, and due to not feeling any connection to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
As for the flag to use, it's difficult, maybe technically it should be blank since they can choose but will never nerd to unless they are good enough for a call up. But let's be honest, how many players with articles are we talking about here? There's only one 4 players in the the Manx category, one of whom is a Scottish international. Le Saux and Le Tiss both opted for England... *checks*... 28 total player articles for the channel islands, including the aforementioned and others who have retired and possibly have no need to include a flag next to their name anywhere. For the others, I think a blind eye can be turned to the anomaly given the unusual circumstances. It's not like anyone is trying to change the Catalan footballers to that flag. And what an admin task that would be depending on what happens there next month! Crowsus (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement despite added 12 years ago, should have proper citation. Either using GB flag (as by nationality law that are part of UK) or Jersey, make less guessing on bloodline eligibility or eligible to any of the home nations thing. Matthew_hk tc 21:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Early Turkish championships

Hello all. In the article List of Turkish football champions the early Turkish championships simply get deleted by User 1886kusagi with the excuse that they are not official titles. They are not counted by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) for the current star rating system, but both former championships (Turkish Football Championship and National Division) were held and organized by the very same TFF! Plus it seems highly unreasonable and revisionist to me to simply ignore and negate almost 50 years of Turkish football history.

In all other analogous articles (i.e. List of German champions, List of Albanian champions, List of Greek champions, List of Italian champions etc.) the former leagues/tournaments with their respective champions are consistently listed. Some of them are not recognized too, so this can't be a reason to simply delete them as if they never existed. The early Turkish champions should be listed to adjust the Turkish article with the rest in the first place.

I have already told the user that these championships are part of that specific countries' football history as well as that of the clubs', but he/she won't listen. So I would like someone to help me in this case. Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If they were organised by the same national association, and factoring in consistency with the other similar project pages, I think they should be included. You wouldnt not include the old First Division with the Premier League in England when counting the totals...Davefelmer (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

assists

An editor raised concerns about the stats on the Alex Morgan. First, it's not in a statistics section. Second, it includes minutes played and assists and in one section, goals per minute. Third, it doesn't follow the formatting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. An editor, Smallchief (talk · contribs), stated that he likes the stats and insists that they stay. He pointed out that there were sources even though they're not completely provided. I discussed and found the problems and after explaining the situation, removed the superfluous content over five edits (I hate editing tables). They were reverted without actually reverting. I simply reverted the edit as not being in-line with the guideline and this community's consensus. I'm out of it now. Feel free to engage the activity or leave it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I would point out several things concerning User:Walter Görlitz deletion of statistical material regarding Alex Morgan, specifically statistics on her assists for club and country.
First, Alex Morgan is one of the most prominent women soccer players in the world, and this article has been rated as a "good article" by various working groups. It has received that good article ratings despite having statistics on assists included in the statistical tables of her performance with the U.S. women's national soccer team (NWT) and the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL), as well as predecessors to the NWSL. That would indicate that the good-article reviewers had no problem with assists being including in the statistical material
The fact that Alex Morgan is rated a good article, would also seem to indicate that the concern Mr. Gorlitz expresses is a minority or fringe view.
Secondly, the source of the assist statistics are the web pages of the U.S. women's national soccer team (NWT) and the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL). They are official statistics and their sources meet the requirements of being reliable. As the NWT and the NWSL compile and publish such statistics, who are we, the editors of wikipedia, to contest their relevance in an article about female soccer players?
Third, It was Mr. Gorlitz who deleted the statistical material after giving an assertion that he was the authority of WP:Footy. That is questionable at best. And he deleted that material and refused to re-consider his deletion, even after another wikipedian User:Hmlarson intervened in the discussion offering to look for a solution.
Fourth, there was no consensus in the discussion on Talk:Alex Morgan that the statistics on assists should be deleted.
Fifth, I am not an argumentative or stubborn person. I believe in consensus and common sense solutions. I have devoted my 25,000 plus edits to creating and improving articles (and in this case preserving important information). I have never been banned or blocked. I am quite willing to work with other people on this subject, but the burden of proof before deleting statistical material from reliable and official sources should rest with Mr. Gorlitz -- the reverter. Let's start from there.

[[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk)

There is consensus from many discussion before to not have assists included. Kante4 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The question therefore is whether a male-dominated European group has the right to to dictate to Americans what is included in articles about American women players and American women's teams. You may have problems with different standards in Europe for calculating assists, We don't have that problem in the United States. The statistics we have for assists are official, consistent, and accurate.[[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is consensus. Kante4 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, good article status means nothing. The review for good articles does not take into account the layout of the article except if some section like references is missing. So appealing to that is a waste of time. As a result, they are fringe and the consensus is mainstream. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why Smallchief is making assumptions on the makeup of the project, football is a global sport, and this is a longstanding consensus on the project. Unless the consensus changes assists should not be included. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And Morgan has played for a European team so is the group allowed to comment on her now? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Further, where did I indicate that I was the authority of WP:Footy? I simply pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players and showed that assists, minutes played and goals per minute were not in the guideline. Your argument was the same as above. I responded that MLS records assists, but most MLS player stats sections do not because of the guideline. Nowhere do I recall indicating that I was the authority of WP:Footy, but I'd be happy to see the diff that shows where I made that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment With no links to consensus discussion(s), it's just a repeating of Kante and S.A. Julio's perspectives. For more information about what consensus is, please see Wikipedia guideline WP:CONACHIEVE. It's not clear why the conversation was re-started here rather than kept on the Alex Morgan talk page where the issue was being discussed. I'd recommend keeping it there rather than posting in multiple places. For a more thorough and current consensus, please see the WP:CON policy for how that is achieved. Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Good idea! I put the above section on the Alex Morgan talk page. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Terrible idea. The discussion belongs here as it is a guideline that will affect many articles not just the one. I archived that discussion. If you want editors of that article to engage in this discussion, point them here. The discussion should only take place in one place. An admin should really have a word with you two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
With no links to the consensus? Check the archives of the discussions on the talk page. Scroll to the top of this talk page. Enter "assist" into the search field and click on the Search archive button. It should take you to a results page similar to this that shows 89 previous discussions that include the term, not all in relation to assist statistics. Making it plural doesn't change the outcome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, you're missing one editor when you state that it's only Kante and S.A. Julio's perspectives. Ahem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm not European, and I do care about the women's game, which is why Morgan's article is on my watchlist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This project has been around for 12 years and has 110+ talk page archives, the topic of assists has been thoroughly discussed. As Walter Görlitz mentioned, if you search through these archives you will see many past discussions (here and here, for example). S.A. Julio (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONACHIEVE. Do you think these two examples reflect consensus? Particularly when one no says "I will continue to oppose this perennial request."? Consensus is not a fixed entity. Discussions to assess it can be opened at any time and contributed to by any editor. Hmlarson (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
There is consensus (another exmaple). Just move on. Kante4 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That's the same link. Hmlarson (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Cool. There are more if needed (see above). All with the same result. Kante4 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Links other than the one referencing a "perennial request" to add assists? Hmlarson (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hmlarson: in the search I provided you above, which of the 20-odd discussions that talk about assists (or other stats that were recently removed from the article) do not, in your opinion, hold consensus that they should not be included? Asking without the negative, which of those in the archives show a consensus that assists should be included in player articles? Do you see any ground for consensus forming that they should be included?
If you're feeling included that consensus should (or even could) change, feel free to create a new section for each type of statistic here and explain why you think the current guideline should be changed to include them, then we can have discussion as to the merits of each and a non-vote (usually listed as !vote) on whether they should or should not be included in a player's statistics section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: just in case you missed it, my response below starting with "Thanks for the links SuperJew" might be of interest. Hmlarson (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about assist. Just searching assist on this talk page's archives brings up plenty. For examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Also it says on the assist page "Recording assists is not part of the official Laws of the Game and the criteria for an assist to be awarded may vary" which is the main reason for the consensus not to list assists - they are not verifiable and different leagues define them differently. Also on the MoS it says "assists columns are against consensus, and should not be included (and should be removed if they are already in an article)." --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links SuperJew. @Smallchief: if you want to pursue this further w/ other editors who want to see a change per the Project Talk archives and individual article talk pages, feel free to start a discussion anywhere per WP:CONACHIEVE (see all sections on that page for some tips for achieving consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines). Per, WP:PROJ, "WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Hmlarson (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
True. A project can't impose its guideline on other editors, but a project of this size could certainly create a local or page-by-page consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, insisting on that would certainly be unproductive and disruptive in a massive scale. There are editors here who would gladly do so as has been seen in multiple AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I have not seen any further edits on this article or the other I watch by Smallchief or Hmlarson, but i just want to confirm that we understand that there is a general consensus to include assists for association football BLPs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I wouldn't say that is the case. I would have said quite the opposite. ClubOranjeT 06:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC).
The opposite of what exactly? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The opposite of there is a general consensus to include assists for association football BLPs.
I would say there's is not a general consensus to add assists for association football biographies (BLP or not). If there is consensus it is a general consensus to not add assists to association football biographies. ClubOranjeT 06:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
My error. I should not edit after a long day and a long week. I should have written, "there is a general consensus to exclude assists". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Games and goals is as far as we should go, per WP:NOTSTATS. This is well established. GiantSnowman 09:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation - RSSSF

Have people come across this reference before? I note it is listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links#Trinidad and Tobago that can be used as a primary source for caps and goals. Reason I ask is I have been looking at it with regards to New Zealand football stats and it all seems correct, I know for a fact three of the people that provided too it for the New Zealand information are some of the best with regards to NZ Football stats (Jerermy Kearse who does http://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/, Dave Webster who does http://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/ and Barry Smith who is recognised by New Zealand Football as their historian https://twitter.com/nz_football/status/217387818048167937).

So would it be appropriate to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links at least for NZ football sources? NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 22:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's an exceptionally highly regarded source which has been being used for years. It is already listed on that page (at the top, under multi-national) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops I don’t know how I missed that! Cool, good to know it’s a reliable source I can use then. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 07:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, rsssf used as reference on many pages. If adding the link make sure it is a direct link to the relevant page; rsssf is not the most easily navigable site on the web. The comment after the NZFootball link is no longer valid I believe. I'm pretty sure someone told them and they have corrected that anomaly. I will verify one day and modify the comment as appropriate. ClubOranjeT 07:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It's generally accurate. I've noticed a few inconsistencies when looking at Australian stats - Soccer Australia/FFA count some historical games where RSSSF don't agree. Hack (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's generally reliable, but not always. Some of the things they have about Iraqi football are completely inaccurate, for example. Hashim-afc (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

1961 AFC Youth Championship

I noticed a user changed the final of 1961 AFC Youth Championship from a 0–0 draw (from RSSSF) to Indonesia 1–0 Burma, thus awarding the title to Indonesia. Google search only returns wikipedia and its copies. The only reliable source I know is RSSSF, and the user did not provide any evidence for his change. This looks too suspicious. Is there anyone who has more info about this tournament? Sofeshue (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The newspaper The Straits Times of Friday, 21 April 1961 page 16, quotes a Reuters newsagency report "INDONESIA, BURMA SHARE CUP BANGKOK. Thurs. - Indonesia and Burma became the joint holders of the Tengku Abdul Rahman Cup when the final of the Asian Youth Soccer Tournament ended in a scoreless draw here tonight." RossRSmith (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Going to revert user Danz.io's edits. Sofeshue (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I found Singapore National Library Board had a database of old English newspaper of Singapore which could be useful to dig out information. The Hong Kong Public Libraries did not have post war English newspaper of Hong Kong in their multimedia database. But it should be useful if typing Chinese in both database, if any of the archived news have any report on football tournament. Matthew_hk tc 11:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ASO Ormideia

One editor keeps deleting the text on ASO Ormideia, falsely claiming the club is not notable. The club played 1987–88 Cypriot Cup. Please help. Linhart (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Linhart: - as you have been told, you need to provide a citation to verify the claim to notability. GiantSnowman 14:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
So the FOOTYN doesn't apply? Linhart (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure it does. But you need a source. Kante4 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
But in the link I provided (1987–88 Cypriot Cup) there is source, it just need to be clicked, if someone doen't belive it: http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/cyp88.html#cup It seems that anyone deleting content afterwards is not assuming good faith and is just trolling. Linhart (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You should have provided the RSSSF link days ago, and avoided all this nonsense. GiantSnowman 18:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Then this editor would find another five rules, policies or whatever to delete it anyway like allways and I would be banned for third revert or something.Linhart (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Stadium galleries

I have been instructed by Crowsus to come here to ask for more opinions on talk page discussions on Wanda Metropolitano and Mendizorrotza Stadium. The subject is whether an IP's preferred version of the pages, with image galleries, is against the advice on WP:GALLERY about indiscriminate photos. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

TBH, somewhere in the middle is probably about right. I'd say have the gallery section, but not with all of the pictures (for instance, in the Wanda Metropolitano article the second to fifth photos in the gallery are probably enough; the others are duplicating others and the presentation one is a bit corporate for Wikipedia). Number 57 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This issue has been sorted now by consensus, Seth Whales constructed a gallery that focussed on construction stages. Harambe Walks (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another stadium question

On Parc Olympique Lyonnais there were boxes listing the Euro 2016 matches and concerts. [5] I had converted the important elements to prose (that France played a knockout match there and a semi-final was held there, but not kick off times, for example). The Euro 2016 details have been added back in. Instead of this becoming an edit war between two users' personal tastes, I would like to know whether such lists are encyclopedic. Euro 2016 was a big deal, yes, but don't we become more like an Almanac or yearbook if we include details about the kick-off time of Ukraine v Northern Ireland and the attendance at Albania v Romania? Such info is arguably notable for the UEFA Euro 2016 article but I don't think it should be on an overall page about a stadium Harambe Walks (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, we have always listed major tournament games in stadium articles. See, for example, Allianz Arena. Number 57 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Matches under-closed doors in infobox

Hi. Should matches played under closed doors (like yesterday's Barça-Las Palmas) be included in the season's infobox as the lowest attendance or not? Asturkian (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? GiantSnowman 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is a matter of reliable sources. The game was undoubtedly played behind a paying crowd of zero ([6]). In my own personal opinion, this should be listed as the lowest attendance (because 0 is lower than any other number), with the explanation "(behind closed doors)" and then after that, put the lowest attendance in a normal game that wasn't handicapped by political turmoil. Although it's not Wikipedia policy to copy other articles' layouts, maybe look for seasons in other countries where you know there have been games behind closed doors, and see what is done there. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem of this criteria is in leagues where it is usually to close doors in several games. E.g. Turkey some seasons, or this one in Hungary a team played three games with 0 spectators. So must we list all the games under closed doors? It's not logic. I think it's good as it is now in the 2017–18 La Liga article, showing the "normal" one and a footnote explaining a/some game(s) was/were played under-closed doors. But I wrote this post for not having an edit war with an IP editor. Asturkian (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Under 20 Elite League

There is an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Under 20 Elite League that could use input from some editors familiar with Wikipedia's treatment of articles on football leagues/tournaments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Citing information in squad lists

Hi, I'm fairly sure there's a consensus on this based on patterns across the project, but I just wanted to double-check. Are we happy that if a player has a Wikipedia article, we don't have to reference their age/caps/club in squad lists (I'm thinking mainly international side articles here, but also reserve/academy ones). I've been looking after England youth team articles recently and for all the players without articles I try to have references for their DOBs if I can find them. I've also been removing DOB cites once the players have had articles created (I've dropped caps for this lot - mainly because the information is unreliable - and clubs are referenced in the squad announcements). This is on the basis that full international squads don't have any of this referenced. Does that sound alright? HornetMike (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't need sourcing on the squad list if it's in the player's article. Number 57 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
For basic facts, a primary source is adequate such as if the FA England team page lists player details to provide that as a reference at the top. Koncorde (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

and 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round

Has anyone seen these articles? How is it relevant to list every single goal scorer in Goalscorers section? Govvy (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems standard. Look at CAF 2nd Round, CAF 3rd Round, CONCACAF 4th Round, CONCACAF 5th Round, CONMEBOL, OFC 2nd Round, OFC 3rd Round, UEFA. --SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, I think it's actually quite a nice touch. It's the kind of information that is very easily lost and difficult to verify without some strong reliable sources (BBC for instance provides few scorers for International matches we, British Isles, are not directly involved in). Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but what gets me in a way it's just repeating the same information you see if you look through the scorers of each game, but just in a different format. All be it, it does make it easier to see who scored how many goals, but how relevant is it to repeat in this format? How many people will know these players? Govvy (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Aren't the list of matches and results just repeating the information in the Win Loss Goals Scored columns too? Aren't the results just duplicated in the matrix to the right of the results tables? Koncorde (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
That's the purpose of linking to the player. Say, for example, someone thinks that they recognise the name "Reza Ghoochannejhad" but can't think why because they don't follow Eredivisie etc. or Iranian football - they can find out that he played for Charlton for a short while--Asterixtintin (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realise our linking is according to how many people know players... --SuperJew (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
So people think this is okay? I must be the only person who thinks this is over-informative. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"It was announced"

I think it is mostly IP's that do this, but one thing that annoys me is "On DATE it was announced that this so and so was appointed as manager. Then on DATE it was announced that he was sacked". Why report that it was announced? Just note that it happened, not that it was announced it had happened.--EchetusXe 11:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I think there is a purpose to using the phrase. The club might announce someone as their new manager or a sacking on a certain date, but for all we know, the contract of the person in question may have started/been terminated a day or two beforehand. Number 57 12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Is that really significant in the grand scheme of things, though? I am also intensely annoyed by articles that continually report that things were announced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There are cases though where it is clear that the announcement and actual change happen at different times. For example Besart Berisha's move from Brisbane Roar to Melbourne Victory was announced mid-season, but only took effect at the end of the season. --SuperJew (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have found that clubs will issue a statement at the end of May or beginning of June detailing those players to be released at the end of June when their contracts expire. 'Announced' seems appropriate in those circs., though I agree it may not be ideal wording. Eagleash (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
In that case, would it not be appropriate simply to say "Smith was released from his contract following the 2017-18 season"? I doubt that if Wikipedia is still here in 100 years' time anyone will be bothered that the actual announcement took place at the end of May......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is tied into the bad habit of people to write current tense as part of recentism and generally unnecessary crufting (at no point in the future will people care about the exact date a manager signed his contract unless it is inherently notable). Most times just saying the month and year in concise enough to summarise events. Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just coming here to make that point. Above, N57 says that "it was announced" is to cover the fact that the announcement may have been made on 2 June but the manager might technically have started in his role on 1 June. Well I would argue that we don't need to be so precise with the dates anyway - saying "in June he was appointed manager" would be more than sufficient.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I kind of agree EchetusXe and Chris. At the end of the day it is not the announcement that is notable, it is what actually happened that is. The minor issue is sometimes an announcement is made that something is going to happen but it hasn't happened yet. In that case I'm all for changing it to what happened when it has happened, and if only month and year is reliably known then that is fine by me. ClubOranjeT 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about cases when the announcement is a month to half-a-year in advance? --SuperJew (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
it is not redundant if the (winter/mid-season) transfer window did not open yet / season not even end (such as Diego Costa, Rodrigo Bentancur), but if the season was ended, the wording may just omit the "announced" and focus on the new contract effective deal, if mentioned in the press release. Otherwise just signed is fine, not quite encyclopedic to say he is not yet a player due to transfer window or other issue on time frame (except bank guarantee, medical that really affect the signing so that the press release use "to sign") Matthew_hk tc 17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Eu-Football.info

Just clicked on a player entry to the aforementioned site (then clicked on another just to be sure), was "greeted" with the message "This account has been suspended". I just hope this does not mean site has crashed or similar.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Site seems to be working now. --Quite A Character (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: You really don't have to get passive-aggressive every question you ask. It actually probably makes people less likely to want to help you. --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, User:SuperJew (i have also removed the (seemingly, not my intention) note). Thanks for your input. --Quite A Character (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C.

I've had a low-level dispute with an IP editor about including Pompey's win in the Asia Trophy in the history section. Portsmouth may not have the fullest trophy cabinet but surely a pre-season sideshow shouldn't be included in the history section. I need other views on the matter before it becomes a full edit war.

Also, the history section is FAR too long (there is already History of Portsmouth F.C., which is another jolly fine mess). I know it's mainly anoraks like us who read pages on third-tier football teams but the length is off-putting for casual readers. It would be better as one undivided section like on Liverpool F.C., which sums up 18 league titles, five European Cups, two major catastrophes and a near bankruptcy in far less space, but I'm pretty sure that IP fans wouldn't like that Harambe Walks (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Preseason articles should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Kante4, this preseason trophy is listed in the honours section, and that matches the source. In this case, should we assume that the WP:PRIMARY source is not reliable for what constitutes a major trophy, and remove it? Harambe Walks (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
For me, yes. Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not very often you see a mainstream team like Portsmouth do something as strange as refer to a pre-season competition as an honour. Koncorde (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I was searching for other examples to see if any other teams did this, and the first thing that came to mind was if Arsenal listed the Emirates Cup in their trophy cabinet, you know as a way to promote their tournament and their sponsor. No Harambe Walks (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the article, you don't have to list it as major trophy, you can have another minor trophy section, also Southern League is missing and should be included, the London War Cup although minor it was classed as competitive. Govvy (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Len Puddefoot

Anyone got any sources that show if he played competitively for Falkirk (or anyone else)? GiantSnowman 09:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Kwadwo Poku

Haven't made a RfC before, so I hope I'm following procedure. I also have a RfC at Talk:Kwadwo Poku (footballer, born 1992). Jay eyem (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe Rodon

I proposed the article Joe Rodon for deletion a few days ago and stand by that given that he has yet to play a first team game. However, User:Jodie25 has removed the PROD banner, as he has played in the latest round of EFL Trophy matches for Swansea's U21s (the reference used states as much). I know that this does not make the article notable but I also know that the guidelines state an article or file can be proposed for uncontroversial deletion, but only once. What should my next step be, as I sometimes struggle to make complete sense of Wikipedia guidelines?--Asterixtintin (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Noninate it for deletion so others can join the discussion. Kante4 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Asterixtintin: - WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 08:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that.--Asterixtintin (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Stale discussions need reviewing

Please may an uninvolved admin (or editor if WP:NAC applies) please review the three merge discussions at WP:FOOTYDEL which have gone quiet... GiantSnowman 16:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I've closed two of the three. The other one (Herbert Leavey/John Leavy) needs more input due to contradictions between them. Number 57 19:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim Baxter

The article on Jim Baxter has:-

a) a disproportionately large introductory summary in relation the actual size of the article b) A level of detail and content in the intro summary that I wouldn't expect to see in an intro summary (i.e. some of the content is material I wouldn't expect to see an intro section and respective equivalent info doesn't appear in intro sections of articles on other footballers c) Contains content that doesn't feature in the main body of the article

I have made some edits to try to tackle this issue. These edits have been undone by a wiki editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorrison230582 (my apols that I don't know how to properly link in someone's user details) without explanation of why they are being undone. In the past I have tried to dialogue with the editor in question re other articles but seem to be persistently banging my head against a brick wall. Thus rather than waste time is it possible I can request some constructive input via this page to request the article is reviewed against the points I make and any other points anyone feels is relevant?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.148.96 (talk • contribs)

Hi 119.236.148.96, I tend to agree with Jmorrison230582 in his revert summary that the article is fine as is, especially considering it has been assessed a GA on the Quality Scale. As per WP:LEAD As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs, I don't think it is too long. Side note: please don't forget to WP:SIG your posts. NZFC(talk) 20:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with the editor seeking to make the changes. It's not a huge article, about 37k characters, and only about half of that is actually readable prose (WP:RPS). The guideline at WP:LEADLENGTH suggest two or three paragraphs may be appropriate for an article of this size. Obviously we can have more if we need to, but is that really the case here? Even if we think the article justifies a longer lead, I'm not convinced we have the correct balance of material. We have only a passing mention of how many trophies he won, couldn't we at least single out how many league titles this includes? There's no mention of any of the halls of fame he has been chosen for, which give some context to his level of notability. But we have found room to mention his marriages and children in the lead despite these being irrelevant to what he is notable for. Yes, it is listed as a good article, and I would be loath to tinker with one that recently attained that status, but it went through GA eight years ago. Maybe standards are different now? I don't think "it's a GA" is, in itself, much of an argument against making changes. Jellyman (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above from Jellyman. I have had a fiddle with the article myself this morning since this was added, mostly small fixes rather than anything big. It certainly wasn't perfect (one 'ref' for a specific incident -the broken leg - was actually a bare wikilink to the entire competition in which the match for the incident was played!) and could still be improved upon. It would probably be a better idea to just add more to the body of the article rather than removing it from the lead, since what its there is basically allowed to be repeated in more detail later - that is likely to be better received (I have also thought previously the lead was a bit weighty compared to the main bit which was a bit light), particularly on a GA article where its assumed it is being well maintained and assessors were happy with the content and layout. Crowsus (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. So I see large parts of the article have now been culled as Unreferenced, while the somewhat excessive lead which also mentions the same information has been left untouched. It would have been almost as easy to assign the appropriate existing refs to the sections in question (Honours, International Goals), or add CN tags, as to cut it. It's not a BLP so I don't really see the problem unless it's contentious, which these, being readily available available stats for a well known figure in the game, are not. However I can't be bothered debating the point with the editor in question who is much more experienced and policy-savvy than me and has clearly chosen to go by the book to the Nth degree, so it would be fruitless, technically the action taken is correct although quite petty and unhelpful IMHO, since as I said it would not have taken long to find the appropriate sources, they are already even refd/linked elsewhere in the article. So, turning a blind eye to someone not turning a blind eye, if anyone wants to restore the content with appropriate refs, please do so, otherwise I will try and find the time tomorrow.Crowsus (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Started gathering sources and I noticed that this paragraph in the lead appears to have been plagiarised almost in its entirity from the SFA profile: "From 1961 to 1967, he was a leading member of a strong Scottish international team that lost only once to England, in 1965, shortly after he recovered from the leg fracture. He thought his best international performance was a 2–1 win against England in 1963, when he scored both goals after Scotland were reduced to 10 players – left back Eric Caldow had his leg broken in a tackle with Bobby Smith. In the 1967 match against England, who had won the 1966 World Cup, he taunted the opposition by ball juggling while waiting for his teammates to find good positions. Although he was given most of the credit for the 3–2 win, some commentators wished he had made an effort to run up a bigger score." I suppose given the age of the article, it's also possible that the SFA text has been nicked from the Wiki article. I'll leave it to others what action they want to take on that.Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to old FIFA World Cup qualification pages

Would anyone be willing to format old FIFA World Cup qualification articles into the current standard, just like several users and IPs have done to the 1998, 2002, and 2006 pages already? The pages that would need to be converted would be the pages between 1966 and 1994 (The articles that have match results in separate confederation pages). Please let me know if conversion is not possible for any qualification page. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've given 1966 a go. Not sure what other people think but I think it's in line with more recent qualification articles.--Asterixtintin (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Afentoulis Afentoulidis

Came across this article from the guys user contributions who created it, I don't think I have seen an article starting with draft before, is it in a sandbox or should it be speedy deleted? Govvy (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DRAFTS. There's no reason to delete at this point. Hack (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not an article, it's a draft. See WP:DRAFTS; draftspace is specifically for the development of articles. If a draft is 'abandoned' for six months or more it can be proposed for speedy via WP:G13. Eagleash (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I am so use to using sandboxes in my user-space and seeing drafts in other ppl's sandboxes, didn't know about this, hmm, wikipedia always surprises me. I also wasn't sure about the article as it didn't feel right. heh Govvy (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Player Infobox linking to Acadmies

I'm sure this has been discussed before but couldn't find consensus on it, there is an IP who is removing the piping on players linking in the info box so instead of it showing that a player in their youth career played for the academy it looks like they were with the 1st team as per here [7] or like this when there isn't an academy to link to [8]. What normally happens here as I don't want to keep reverting but think it looks better to show academy than the 1st team on the link you click. NZFC(talk) 21:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard practice, looking at Lionel Messi, Harry Kane, Gareth Bale, Ryan Giggs etc. shows the club they played for, piped to the team they played for where applicable. ClubOranjeT 21:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers ClubOranje, so if there is an academy page we link to that but then just name the club? NZFC(talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Kante4 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunbar Rovers NPL

Hello football enthusiasts. I edited this article to remove a lot of puffery, but not being involved in sports I don't know whether this is a notable team or if there are other changes that should be made. Maybe someone here will take an interest.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

They have played in the FFA Cup, so meet our generally accepted notability criteria. Never seen a full board of directors listed in the infobox though... Number 57 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The Name of the club is Dunbar Rovers FC. Article changed when they were promoted to the 3rd tier of NSW, which is called NPL3. Doesn't make sense. Article name needs to be changed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
In general, many club articles at or below the NPL1 level are written by insiders from within the club, and often have masses of information on board, reserves teams, detailed year by year league season statistics, entire coaching staff (including physios), most of which is non notable and certainly makes the articles unbalanced. In Dunbar's case, we have the nationalities of the coaching staff, we have the listing of their Data Analyst, and a listing of the coaching qualifications (actual and in progress of the coaches). Can someone suggest a good article for a team at this level that can be used as a reasonable template to align the depth of information provided? I have changed several over the past year (mostly in Western Australia) and have often had changes to remove such extraneous information reverted by the single passionate fan/media officer that is the primary editor for such articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Generally, a club that has never played top-level NPL, and historically the top division of state league, won't have received enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Often it comes down to how well the club gets on with the local paper. Hack (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

height units

Hi, is there a consensus for which units to use for the height parameter in the infobox (cm or m)? --SuperJew (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the source says was the result of an earlier discussion i think. Common is "m" as i've seen this more around (In Germany e.g. it is m and not cm). Kante4 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
M (or ft) is standard - not really cm. GiantSnowman 10:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks! --SuperJew (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

David Moyes - BLP

In the personal life section on David Moyes, there is a one-line paragraph on when he was investigated for an alleged assault. No action was taken.

Although the sources confirm that Moyes did nothing wrong, is this really worth mentioning at all? I can imagine cases in which a police investigation would be notable even if nothing was found - if the subject lost their job or if they sued a tabloid for jumping to conclusions. I can't find a policy about this (WP:BLPCRIME is about ongoing cases) but I can't imagine the reader loses anything if we don't include this. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Would tend to agree with you, without a conviction or any notable consequences, it doesn't really add anything to the article. Yes, it appeared in the news, but I'm sure you could find many instances of news coverage of him opening village fetes or suchlike, which would be no more useful. Jellyman (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I would second that. Seems like recentism. Nzd (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, if nothing happened then it's not worth noting.--EchetusXe 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"See also: List of footballers with 100 or more caps"

Eemiratess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding "See also" sections linking to the List of footballers with 100 or more caps page to a few dozen footballers' pages. My understanding was that such sections shouldn't be added, as GiantSnowman wrote on the user's Talk page in July. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's fine MOS-wise, as long as the target isn't already linked elsewhere in the article. It's clearly a tangentially related topic, one that the reader might well want to follow up on, but it isn't one that can necessarily be clearly linked to in prose. Piping it as "he won his [[List of footballers with 100 or more caps|100th cap]] in ...", as is sometimes done, is a bit WP:EASTEREGGy, in that the reader can't tell without clicking/hovering that the target is a general list. I'm not keen on mass additions of anything, but I wouldn't object to this one being added to pages on a case-by-case basis, if the list isn't already clearly linked in the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, fine to include as long as not linked to within content of article per MOS:SEEALSO. Hmlarson (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

what happened to editing?

I got this horrible new way of editing big ugly fat editing bar I don't want previews that don't show or come up, I really don't like it at all can anyone tell me how I can get my editing window back to old-school? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: Go to preferences and then you can change stuff under appearances. I still view Wiki in the old MonoBook format... Number 57 10:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Mine was on Monobook, I turned off all the beta features, didn't know I had them on, seem to be back to more normality for what I like. Something made it horrible for editing! I much prefer Monobook next to all the others. Thanks again. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
off-topic. Edit is fine, but the horrible speed of watch list. (May be i have 5000+ page in the list is another problem) Matthew_hk tc 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any problem with the watchlist and mine is over 10,000. Number 57 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
may be i set the date too long (was 7, then reduce to 4), which have to load lots of information to generate searchable data? It jam my firebox browser. Matthew_hk tc 09:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

1989-90 Coppa Italia

Hello, I've completed the football boxes for each semifinal and the two legs final but don't know how to add the sources. Anyway these are the articles from La Stampa that report the results:

Regards, -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: These should go into the |report= part of the table (just paste the URLs). Thanks, Nzd (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

rsssf.com

I’m helping out on some of the Algerian football articles. Can you remind me - is rsssf.com considered a reliable source? I have a vague recollection that it is. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is. Number 57 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
rsssf.com, we even have an article on them, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, is ammong the moost reliable sources. FkpCascais (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Last week's discussion here, but more if you search the archive (search field above) for RSSSF.ClubOranjeT 09:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#RSSSF.com. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women footballers during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Home of Football

Should this disambiguation page have our football project tag on the talk page? Are there other possible search terms or pages this should be covering? Govvy (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

England Youth

I've come across various sources that refer to a person playing for, or coaching, England Youth. They generally relate to the 1960s or earlier. Does anyone know how this relates to the current structure of youth teams? Was this a recognised name at the time, and is there a direct equivalent now? The EFO link below suggests this was an U-18 team, but there's no mention on that article, or indeed anywhere else on Wikipedia. It could be that these sources are just not being precise enough, but I've seen it enough times to think it was an actual name that was used.

A couple of online examples of the name being used are:

Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to confirm, this does relate to the England U-18 team. I did some digging and found a load of stuff about England Youth participation in the FIFA International Youth Tournament and its subsequent incarnations. I have updated the relevent pages acordingly and created a redirect. Nzd (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What to do about Team Wellington page

So this page has massively edited by an IP that I assume works for the club or at least is closely related. Because of all these edits, there is now a lot of unsourced stuff. I debated either going through and removing it or adding citation tags, but wanted others thoughts because I try clean it up. Personal note, I follow this team so believe the information to be correct but realise it violates Wikipedia policy. NZFC(talk) 01:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ignore, I have gone through and added tags and cleaned it up. Will try find sources now for stuff I've tagged. NZFC(talk) 01:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Club season articles

What are other editors' thoughts on articles like this or this. At the time there was no football league, so it's a bit silly to say they fail WP:NSEASONS. However, the club wasn't admitted to the Football League until 1920. Should we have season articles for clubs prior to their entry to the Football League? Cheers, Number 57 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think they're probably more notable as they are the first seasons of the club. For later years before playing in a professional league, I'm less sure. --SuperJew (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Season articles still need to pass GNG, if a season article is well source and done correctly I can't see why not, but then do we have to set bench marks for historic seasons of a club? Are we using a preset date? Govvy (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
To be fair I could write a very well sourced article on AFC Sudbury's current season, but realistically we need to have a cut-off point for what level is considered notable enough to have standalone season articles; at present WP:NSEASONS is pretty much aligned with WP:FPL criteria, but the question I was really asking is what do we do about (a) pre-Football League season articles and (b) articles for clubs that later played in the Football League but weren't at the time of the season article in question. Number 57 22:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I was debating the same question with myself whether seasons played in amateur divisions of clubs before they became well known (like Hapoel Be'er Sheva, current Israel champions) or were well known and dropped down and came back up the leagues are worth creating, as they do have historical significance and interest, and, therefore, "almost always meet the notability requirements" (as WP:NSEASONS puts it). Of course, such an article should meet other requirements of NSeasons, such as being mainly well-sourced prose, etc..--Eranrabl (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete, as they didn't play in a national or professional level competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
how about 2017–18 Leyton Orient F.C. season I would say it could pass on GNG but fail NSeasons, the editor put a lot of effort into it, seems a shame on so many levels to delete it to me! Govvy (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor putting a lot of effort in is not a reason for keeping an article... Number 57 13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If it passes the requirements of GNG, then NSeasons is irrelevant. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
So effectively if a season article is excellently sourced GNG supersedes NSeasons? That would work on historic seasons. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion about stats tables

... or to be precise, the as-of date, wording and reference(s) positioned above stats tables. Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#Correcting use of updated template. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Southern League historical stats

Anyone know if historical player stats are available for the Southern League? I'm particularly trying to find season breakdowns for John Cartwright's spells at Bath City & Wimbledon in the 1960s. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of books about Wimbledon that might have that level of detail, but I don't know for sure. For Bath I would say it is pretty unlikely..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The old version of the Bath City website gives 60 apps 30 goals total, but no breakdown by competition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Yeah, I found the Bath City website. I'll be adding it in as prose, but I can't add to the infobox without further info. It looks like the Wimbledon ref I need is "Clive Leatherdale (1995). Wimbledon: From Southern League to Premiership : a Complete Record. Desert Island Books. ISBN 978-1-874287-09-4.", but it doesn't look like any Wikipedians have it! Nzd (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Nzd, did you try emailing Bath City website maybe they might have a resource suggestion for you to use. Govvy (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Govvy: Good plan, I'll do just that. The British Library have the Wimbledon book so I'll pay a visit when I get a chance. I've updated the article. I think some of the dates could still do with additional refs, but I wanted to get it up there before anyone else made further changes as I'm away next week. Thanks all. Nzd (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tahiti

Hi, as you know {{fb|TAH}} returns Tahiti national football team. but this is not the case for other Tahiti national FIFA-related teams, like Beach Soccer, Futsal and women's futsal. I asked for necessary changes here but it seems nobody read that, I thought maybe someone here can help me with this. Mohsen1248 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

i'm not sure fb would ouput Beach Soccer, as Fbw output women team, fbu output under-X team, if you want to add |name alias-[sports]=Tahiti to the Template:Country data French Polynesia, you just need to submit edit request there. Matthew_hk tc 06:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bengaluru FC#Merge proposal

Be much appreciated if we could get a few more voices on here please. cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

All-time Chicago Red Stars roster

Do pages like this have any notability (apart from the insane amount of time needed to keep them updated - hasn't been updated since 2009)? --SuperJew (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

as far as i know, there is List of Liverpool F.C. players Matthew_hk tc 20:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be a few like it around, I've always had on the back burner to spend time updating this one for the Nix. NZFC(talk) 20:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware that there are others like it. The question is by Wiki guidelines should this kind of article exist or is it a violation of WP:NOTSTATS? --SuperJew (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it should exist - just like the others. Hmlarson (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If you feel inclined, you could ping some of the editors that work frequently on the CRS articles to let them know it needs updating. Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't see how it's really any different to the many "List of So-and-so F.C. players" articles that exist for English clubs, many of which are Featured Lists........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyone going to actually give a reasoning and not just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --SuperJew (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:LISTN - lists of notable people are notable. I suggest these lists are re-named in line with the 'List of [team] players' GiantSnowman 07:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you GiantSnowman :) I second the suggestion to re-name for consistency - would need to be done for all the pages in Category:Lists of soccer players by club in the United States. --SuperJew (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to apply some kind of inclusion criteria (many similar lists utilize "50 or more" or "100 or more" appearances). Otherwise, this list will quickly become too large to maintain. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Another issue is sourcing the information in the table. WPS no longer maintains a website (and I'm not sure they ever kept an all-time player registry), so we would need to use a website like this one which may or may not qualify as WP:RS. Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What about Soccerway? --SuperJew (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
That's perfect. I didn't realize Soccerway kept databases for WPS and NWSL player statistics. Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Lunatic IP

Hi, could an admin please look at the edits made by 110.35.10.122 and if you are in agreement with me they they are all disruptive nonsense, revert everything and ban? I see there's already a few warnings on the talk page. Cheers. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, can anyone please advise me on the process for applying for rollback rights? This particular vandalism above is a bit too widespread for that, (it needs a powerfully broom to sweep that clean!) but would be useful for the occasional multi-edit crap that gets added to a single article.Crowsus (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Crowsus (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
They're still at it by the way, even as I see reverting has commenced. Ban needed ASAP... Crowsus (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
They've been given a 31-hour block and I think I've reverted everything that hadn't already been done. If they return as soon as the 31 hours are up, I'd advise taking them straight back to WP:AIV. You shouldn't have to go through all the cutesy warning messages again if they start up the same behaviour straight off a block. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:110.35.10.122 is back (to a limited extent), nothing today but they added a nonsense Latin American player to the squads of Genoa and their youth team yesterday. I can't even begin to work out the point of doing that??? Anyway, have not fixed it let to let others have a look if desired. If I see anything else, AIV it shall be.Crowsus (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Crowsus, user has done it on a few articles now so I have rolled them back and reported IP. NZFC(talk) 22:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Lists of expatriate association football players

I have a question about the formatting of the section headings of type of list article. I came across List of foreign football players in Serbia while checking on something and noticed that there are flag icons being used in the section headings. MOS:HEAD says that this kind of thing should not be done, so I was WP:BOLD and removed the icons. I was reverted with the statement that removing the icons created inconsistency with other articles.

Anyway, I was just going by Wikipedia's MOS; if there's a local FOOTY guideline on this, then fine. Is there a local FOOTY guideline for list articles such as these? Checking the WT:FOOTY archives, there does seem to have been quite a bit of discussion on flag use; however, I couldn't find anything on this. If it has been discussed before, then my bad. Personally, I'm not quite sure I see the role these icons are intended to play in articles like this because the nationality of the players is clearly indicated by the name of the country. If consistency is the only issue here and there's no real need for the icons, I don't mind going through the category and removing the icons from the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for fixing the article, even if it were previously discussed, MOS takes precedence, and saying that "either all should follow x or none should" is poor reasoning for violating community consensus. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FkpCascais has continued to revert, and doesn't seem to understand what an official Wikipedia guideline is. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I will support the removal of flags if we agree as consensus to remove the flags from all similar lists from Category:Lists of expatriate association football players. All lists are basically equal in content, so makes no sense to insist in appliying one rule in one obscure list while ignoring it in the most visited ones. All I ask is for consistency, cause makes no sense having one or two lists having different patterns from the other 5O ones. I think it is fair to aks the community for a discussion first and either apply an edit to all or not to either one. Thank you both for bring it here Julio and Marchjuly. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is really not about the Serbian list, cause regarding flag usage, it just folloows the trend found in 9 out of ten lists from the Category:Lists of expatriate association football players. If you notece, the lists of the top leagues such as List of foreign La Liga players, List of foreign Serie A players, List of foreign Bundesliga players, List of foreign Ligue 1 players and almost all others HAVE the flag next to the country name in its section headings. So the Serbian list basically just foollows the trend found in the lisits at that category. Why inisting in applying a specific interpratation of MOS in one (actually obscure list, Serbian league is certainly not one of the most followoed) while not appliying it in the main others§ These users got upset because I reverted them, but all I ask is for consitency and consensus about this issue for all lists. I oonly reverted because of that. FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The only option is to immediately revert? And "aks the community for a discussion first" on what? Whether to follow the MOS and accessibility guidelines or not? Other articles will be fixed, but it won't happen immediately. I find it strange that "consistency" is of higher priority than following Wikipedia guidelines. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: I am not upset because you reverted me. I simply started this discussion to ask for clarification. You on the other hand violated WP:3RR by continuing to revert the removal of the icons apparently because you think WP:OTHERCONTENT is a valid justification for keeping them. WP:MOS was established through a community-wide consensus and applies to all articles; MOS:HEAD says that flag icons shouldn't be used in section headings. The flag icons can be removed from the other articles if necessary, but they don't need to be removed all at once and they don't need to be removed by the same editor. So, if there's some policy/guideline based reason that you feel these flag icons are needed in the section headings of these articles, then please clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that this isn't just a flag-specific issue: MOS:HEAD says we shouldn't include any images in section headings, not just flags. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Anything other than plain text in section headings breaks accessibility, screen readers cannot correctly parse headings with extraneous content. To put it bluntly, these headings discriminate against readers and editors who have visual impairments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think we are clashing unecessarily because I have no doubts the 3 of us just want to improve the project. The issue of flags has been widely debated here very often. Flags have been discussed in 127 threads here. Most flags had been removed from football–related articles when found inappropriate, however, no one ever removed them from these lists and flags are used exact same way in all of them as they are in the Serbian list. I am not even sure if those are actually headings because there iis no prose in them, it is just a list of countries. The case here is not WP:OTHERCONTENT but rather that ALL articles practice one same pattern which for some way you disagree only in one particular list. It is standard and an apparent undeclarated consensus that these lists should use flags that way. I recall cases where the same exact arguments Julio is using were rejected and flags stayed having in mind the specificity of sports–related articles. MOS has been applied with certain flexibility on occasions. So seems fair to bring the issue firt for discussion. Yes, I reverted because I am working on the article, but you shoudnt have reverted back but rather open a discussion, since this is clearly a case of different POV between senior editors and certainly not a case of vandalism. You can report me if you feel I broke 3RR, but I would rather do things constructively and use this chance to come to a consensus regarding the issue oof use of flags in these lists. Lets be patient and see what the community thinks. If the result comes to be the removal of flags, I will restore your edit myself, dont warry, and iiif the result comes out to be leaviing the flags, well, lets just move on. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so the lists done that way by using headings to add each country make accessibility problems to readers and editors with visual impairments, so then we should remove all flags from all the lists. Does anyone oppose? FkpCascais (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Since it is weekend, it is usual the absense of many editors till monday, however, I have reverted myself and removed the flags from the headings in the Serbian list. Despite that, I still believe I acted correctly by insisting a broad discussion to be opened. The reason is that there may be another solution that not the removal of flags. For instance, why each country has to have a heading and section? It actually doesnt because there is no prose there, it is just a list. Whould it be a problem if instead the heading for each country, we eliminated the headings and highlight the country name with a ; before it and a flag (or that without flag, lets see options)? Allow me to ping the creators and main editors of these lists and see their opinion. FkpCascais (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
An interesting idea by FkpCascais, and since we don't use the headers for a TOC on these lists usually not to bad. My concern though is that it would make remove the ability to edit a section of only that country, and every edit you would have to edit the whole page. --SuperJew (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right SuperJew that option I mentioned would have that problem which would only be slighter in cases such as the List of foreign Chinese Super League players where countries are separated by continents. FkpCascais (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The headings are used in the TOC of at least the Serbia and Chinese list articles (they're not the traditionally formatted TOC, but it's still a TOC). Moreover, using the semi-colon markup will create "pseudo-headings", which also cause accessibility problems and shouldn't be used for level two section headings. Doing so will, as SuperJew points out, making editing an individual section much more difficult because the edit window for the entire page will have to be opened up instead.
Others have given reasons for why the use of these flag icons is inappropriate, but you have not given any real reasons other what appear to be WP:OTHERCONTENT and possibly WP:CONTENTAGE as to why they should be retained. They seem (at least to me) to be being used for decorative purposes only (i.e., to show the flag) which is mainly why flag icons are not allowed in most infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Each of these articles seem to be divided into sections based upon nationality and each section heading is a country name. So, any player in a particular section would be assumed to be from that particular country, right? Why do feel these flag icons are necessary and what relevant additional encylopedic information do you feel they provide? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you are not reading me. The reason why I reverted you is not because I defend flags but because you made an unilateral major change that, if accepted, will directly affect 1O4 other articles. Besides, you changed something that has been as stable as such for over a decade. Since your edit affects such a large ammount of articles I found it appropriate to implement a consensus for it first since seems obvious quite a lot of editors do it contrary of what you are saying. Lets hear their arguments if they have something to say and some possible proposals and alternatives. You point out to numerous principles that are doubtfully related to our case here. Your defnitelly valid one is the one Dodger67 resumed, which says that if countries are separated by using the usual heading as headings are made in normal articles containing prose we definitelly cannot add flags cause they discriminate readers and editors who have visual :impairments. That argument by itself is enough to support that: A) either we remove flags in those cases, or, B) we find another way of listing countries. Since Serbian list used classical headings for listing countries I restored your edit in which you removed the flags, so please stop missinterpreting me as someone who reverted you because I wanted flags, but understand that I want a consensus in how the countries would be listed in this list since there are other options, so we should see the most appropriate one. Now, regarding flags (and this is the first time I am saying it, so all previous conclusions were unfounded) I personally find their "decorative" purpose usefull as they are an extra information and can help identifiyng less known countries. That means that I am not against them per se, I support their inclusion as an extra information, however, I am aware of the weakness of this pro–flags argument, and if any good argument comes against them, I have no problem supporting their removal. Resumingly, if flags have to go, let them go, but if we find an alternative which includes them and breaks no principle, I will support it. Just dont mix up unrelated issues (infobox§ we are all against flags in infobox since pre–history here) and have in mind that these are lists so the coountries listed are not actually headings, headings were just an easy way to edit them. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that MOS:HEAD is a community-wide consensus which applies to all articles, and also deals with the accessibility issue. This was something that S.A. Julio pointed out, yet you continued to edit war for what seems to be based upon arguing WP:CONTENTAGE. Also, it’s not clear why you feel these headings shouldn’t be treated as section headings when you want them to be formatted as such and the software will treat them as such.
What extra information do these icons provide the reader? How do they help identify lesser known countries better than the actual names of the countries themselves? The same flag images can be seen in the respective articles about the countries, which in turn can be linked to as needed. That is why I mentioned infoboxes because this seems to be basically the same type of usage that is not allowed for them. Why do you think this type of usage be treated as an exception to a community-wide guideline because that appears to be what you’re asking? — Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Please keep flag on articles regarding foreign player lists. I don't understand why we discuss about it. Do you really think that this is important argenda? This is a trivia. If Flag is exist on articles, What's the problem? Flags were existed for 7-8 years on foreign player articles. We didn't have any problems. Because of just regulations of MOS. I think that regulations of MOS are too stubborn. In my opinion, Wikipedia regulaitons and some wikipedia users needs flexibillity. Don't waste the precius time in order to discuss trivias! Take it easy! Please discuss the productive things~ Footwiks (talk)

Wikipedia policies exist for a reason. Using flagicons in headers is purely decorative, adding no value to articles, and is an accessibility issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Like this article - [[9]] If flagicon cause the problem, We have to remove them. But these flagicons on foreign player list don't cause any problems. OK, I know that using flagicons in headers on foreign player list article is purely decorative. So what? In the world, There are many just purely decorative things. Please see this video! (Video link removed). There is a purely decorative flagicon! Because of flagicon, Is there any problem? Do you really angry about flagicon on this video. Like this, Using flagicons in headers on article is trivia. Everyone don't care flagicon and Some people like visual sign. Please take it easy and Please Don't sweat the small stuff! Footwiks (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC); [Note: Link to YouTube video removed by Marchjuly per WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)]
We are discussing how a Wikipedia community guidline applies to articles on English Wikipedia, not videos uploaded to YouTube or articles on Korean Wikipedia. Korean Wikipedia may have its own policies/guidelines, but those do not apply here anymore than English Wikipedia's policies/guidelines apply to Korean Wikipedia. YouTube is an external third-party website that has no connection to Wikipedia at all, and it is not subject to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines.
The problem with the flag icons has more than that they just are decorative. It also has to do with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility because Wikipedia articles (as hard as it may seem to believe) are also there for people who might be visually impaired to some degree. These individuals may use special devices or software to help them read articles, and adding flag icons to section headings creates problems for these devices, etc. when they try to read the articles. So, while some readers might enjoy visual images, some readers may simply not be able to see them.
Finally, please do not add links to copyright violating videos on YouTube as explained in WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK and WP:YOUTUBE. If you want to add a link to an official website which clearly is the originator of the video content as an example, then please do that instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Flags should 100% be removed. All reasons are explained above. (And yes, on all articles before that comes up again...) Kante4 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Having read all your arguments I agree with removing flags from all similar lists. If a guideline indicates flag icons should be avoid in headlines is because there is already a consensus.Brayan Jaimes (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a glaring need for flags in the section headers. That said, we have similar sortable lists which do include flags within a single table of all the footballers in the page (in large part because you cannot identify nationality at a glance like you can with those headers. I presume we don't need to change those tables? Jogurney (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The thread is purely about MOS:HEAD-violating images (that happen to be flags) in section headings. If the lists you're on about don't have images in section headings, then this thread doesn't want to change them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
List of current American soccer players by US state should probably be added to the list if these are all going to be changed.. Nzd (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
And List of association football families while you're at it. Nzd (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are any further objections to removing these images, I am assuming that a consensus has been established to do so. As I posted in my original post, I am perfectly happly to help do this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals

Just more of a note to editors, but some news sources have copied the stats from this article on their website which had wrong information on it. For instance eurosport.com I am sure copied from the website not knowing that Andy Cole had more goals and Rooney had less goals in the premier league. And Lampard's was way off which one guy posted on the talk page four years ago which I fixed yesterday! Although citations could be improved. Bearing this in mind, Harry Kane is 16 goals of from 100 premier league goals and news sources might come back to the article when he reaches the 100 mark. So just keep an eye on it thanks as I think a few people have vandalised it in the past. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is Premier League Player Stats: Goals, and is cited in the bottom row of the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I am going blind, can't count for shit, I need to go for a walk in front of a car now! Govvy (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
That's probably an over-reaction... But if it helps, I've edited the table to make the source a bit more obvious. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the edits of IP 199.102.113.10

I have some concerns regarding the edits of this particular IP address, and I'm not sure how to address this issue. Most of the edits they are making look fine, but for the most part seem to include non-notable information e.g. they are writing about players scoring assists in a (relatively) trivial game. Perhaps I am unclear about what should be included in a player's profile. I was under the impression that for articles like those they've been editing, the standard is just to include major firsts e.g. debuts, goals, hat tricks, etc. I'd appreciate some input on this. Jay eyem (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Kante4 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

If you please: the same Record reference i added to the articles of Miguel Garcia (footballer) and Custódio Castro (in both cases placed at #1) does not display properly because the symbology inserted there (the goal minutes) causes some kind of jinx i cannot fix.

Thanks in advance with whatever can be provided, happy work all --Quite A Character (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed the italics if that is what you meant? Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to find a way to fix the display without removing the italics as they are part of the original title, but that's OK too. Thanks! --Quite A Character (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources on Player Positions

I attempted to update a player's position in their intro, since it was reflecting a position that they hadn't played at all this season. It was reverted with the reverter stating that Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source for a player's position. Is there a reason for this? Is there a comprehensive list of reliable sources?

I can understand that the rumours & value portion of the site are speculative, but the record of positional information on a player seems like it'd fall under Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source.

Was this just a case of an overzealous revert, or is there a reason that's not clear to me on why Transfermarkt is unreliable for this usecase?

Sebguer (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, transfermarkt (in its entirety) isn't considered reliable, as it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For more information about checking and identifying reliable sources read WP:RS. --SuperJew (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Player position is so varied these days and open to interpretation that beyond "defender", "midfielder" or "forward" few reputable sites try to identify the position to any great detail. Koncorde (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. In this case it was about Kimmich, who has played exclusively at right back all season at Bayern, and yet was described as a midfielder in his intro. I guess, the main thrust of my question is- what is a reliable source when trying to point to something like that? It was surprisingly hard to find an article or good source on the position he'd played in recent games.

Sebguer (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure https://www.football-lineups.com is reliable or not as it was also community built. Matthew_hk tc 02:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is one. But why not mention both positions. -Koppapa (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Best Footballer in Asia

I wasn't sure if we should have cat's list this or not, seems strange to me, Govvy (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The award is not widely recognized, unlike Asian Footballer of the Year, not sure the policy on these cat. Article is ok if have secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 15:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Deportivo Maldonado

Someone with COI requested an edit on Deportivo Maldonado. For the history part can't be comply with the request to "remove negative part", but can someone familiar with the infobox code, fix the away shirt for him? Matthew_hk tc 16:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I've fixed the shirts. You can just copy the coding directly from the Spanish Wikipedia article if you need to do it. Also, you don't have to put |30em into the reflist – it now automatically splits into columns if there are enough to require it (>10). Cheers, Number 57 16:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:RhodesAvenue incorrect categorisation and using unlicensed images

Hello, I was hoping for some input on the best course of action involving RhodesAvenue. The user creates quite a few club season articles, but has been making a bit of a mess. The user seems to just copy the infobox and categories from the club's main article when creating these season articles, which results in the articles created being categorised incorrectly, along with the more concerning issue of copying over the unlicensed club logos which are included in the infobox. For example, see his latest article created, 2017–18 SC Paderborn 07 season. The article is incorrectly included in categories such as "Football clubs in Germany" and "Association football clubs established in 1907". Also, the image copied over, File:SC Paderborn 07 logo.svg, is not licensed to be used on the article (and probably shouldn't be even if rationale was provided). RhodesAvenue has been warned multiple times, but seems to simply ignore messages on his talk page. It would be best if users didn't have to go around cleaning up his mess, so some input on what should be done would be of use. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Would be good if he would communicate here. He saw it as he removed your post at first. Kante4 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, he saw that message but continues. I dropped a message at his talk page. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I've also asked them to join the discussion and warned them that if they continue to create heavily flawed articles, they'll be blocked. Number 57 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rhian Brewster speedy deletion?

Is the page Rhian Brewster eligible for speedy deletion? It was deleted already in two AFDs (see here and here) and yet it is somehow still an article. Seems to meet WP:G4 in every aspect. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say it should be deleted and salted. The most recent AfD only closed two days ago and anyone wanting to recreate it so soon should have to go to DRV. Number 57 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The template was removed by an ip user on 26 October as a "contest", claiming coverage as the top scorer of 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup, but i don't saw any real WP:GNG, in-depth coverage. Matthew_hk tc 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The speedy deletion criteria was removed from the article, with the reasons being stated here. Should the article be put through an AFD again? Inter&anthro (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
i saw it was formally declined. The "significant" coverage from recent day debatable? Matthew_hk tc 12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Is Ad Orientem even an admin, I didn't see him down as an admin, also I can see why he can pass GNG, coverage from BBC Sport, The Guardian, ESPN and The Independent is significant coverage for the youngster. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes he is, but coverage such as Hunter, Andy (26 October 2017). "Rhian Brewster: England U17's natural finisher on the fast-track at Liverpool". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 October 2017 – via www.theguardian.com. debatable to me, anyone still think it should go to AFD? Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Lots of people, young stars in particular, get mentions in papers. However the qualifier for sports is well established and we should be careful expanding it. The number of players who do well, but never go on to anything, is notable. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah most of the coverage seems to be Ohhhhh a young English talent! The British press have a history of hyping up young British talent almost in every youth cycle. I think the fact that subject is English is why there is so much coverage, for example Kelechi Iheanacho the stand out player of the u-17 world cup two editions ago was deleted four times before subject passed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
heh, well he just won the U17 World Cup, that's only going to give him more coverage. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion and context standard(s) for stats pages?

This WikiProject's scope includes a lot of pages that present statistics and other tabular data, without always including much in the way of context. (Many of these fall under Category:Association football records and statistics.) What I want to know is, does this WikiProject maintain any internal standard for what these pages should look like, in terms of what data should be included, and what sort of context is considered sufficient to make a large table a valid encyclopedia article? Thanks, —swpbT go beyond 18:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swpb: The "List XX F.C. records and statistics" pages were originally created as splits of the main club articles. Per WP:NOTSTATS, this is allowable and encouraged. Someone else may be able to provide better insight, but I'm not aware of specific guidelines for football stats pages. However, NOTSTATS covers "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" and confirms that these should conform to general guidelines on notability for stand-alone lists. In my mind, this would preclude things like line-ups for your average league game, or some of the geekier OPTA-type stats (like 'most crosses', etc). WP:V obviously needs to be met, so if those stats are significant enough to be published by other publications, then they probably merit inclusion here (IMO, with the above proviso). Personally, I'm not sure I'd want to preclude the addition of interesting information by imposing content standards across the board, but other editors may have different opinions. You are obviously right that all pages should have appropriate leads to provide context. Was there a particular issue or suggestion you were thinking of? Nzd (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Vurnon Anita nationality

I'm seeking a third opinion(s) for a disagreement regarding Vurnon Anita's FIFA nationality. Please see Talk:2017–18 Leeds United F.C. season to participate in the discussion. Thanks in advance IJA (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of second nationality parameter from Template:Fb si player

Following on from the discussion, I was amazed to see a formalised template with a parameter allowing two flags to be shown for dual nationality players ("nb" for nationality of birth and "ni" for FIFA nationality). Personally I really don't think this should be allowed or encouraged and the nationality should simply match that shown in the main squad list on the club article (as this discussion shows, it is a recipe for disputes, especially if our Albanian IP friend(s) find out about it). So, I'd like to propose that the template be amended to have a single nationality (if this succeeds, the paramater can just be changed to "nat" and a bot can be organised to replace "nb" with "nat" if there is no secondary nationality, or change "ni" to "nat" if there is (and delete what is in for "nb"). Hope that all makes sense. Cheers, Number 57 18:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Even on the talk page of the template they are saying how this goes against MOS:FLAG. Koncorde (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Support As I said on the talk page there, the only case where there might be an argument to have 2 flags is with young players who are eligible for more than one nation, haven't made a statement about their preference and it is a reasonable assumption that the nations would want them on their senior team - so basically where there is ambiguity. As these are rare cases I support removing the 2nd nat parameter, and in the rare cases it can be solved with a footnote mentioning it. --SuperJew (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Support - The flag should reflect the flag in the squad list where we don't use two flags. If the player has previously represented another international team at youth level or was born in another country, we can always include a note. Two flags looks messy. IJA (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Support - Per above. Kante4 (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Support - per nomination, but shouldn't this proposal be discussed on the template talk page? Nzd (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nzd: I started the discussion here because there is a bigger audience – I don't think many people would have seen it on the template talk page (the two editors who contributed the bulk of the discussion there both stopped editing several years ago and the other one has fewer than 30 edits this year). Number 57 19:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Number 57: Fair enough. I'd still advise linking to this discussion from that talk page though, just in case there are editors that have the template watchlisted but not WT:FOOTY. I've seen instances before where there have been accusations of off-page discussions being used to impose changes on pages without the editors of the page being fully consulted. I'm definately not suggesting that is the case here, but it's worth covering all bases. Nzd (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nzd: Done. Number 57 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I please add the Current Heybridge Swifts Squad onto their wikipedia page.

I am a Heybridge Swifts fan who is very passionate about the club. I am involved in the social media of the club and have a column in the brand new programme. I would like to add the Current Squad into a table on the page as it will expose the team to more people and will expand the club. I know there have been issues in the past with people not keeping the squads up to date, but I promise you that this will be regularly updated as we have started to buy some more players which means it will need to be updated.

I hope my request will be accepted,

Many thanks,

Josh Longman - Heybridge Swifts

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs)

@HeybridgeSwiftUltra: - you don't need permission to edit. If you're struggling to add the content from a technical perspective, then let us know. All we ask is that the content is verified by a reliable source. GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) For some background, I advised Josh to bring this discussion here after removing the (unsourced) squad list from the Heybridge Swifts F.C. article. I did so because it's become apparent over the years that it's a not a good idea to have squad lists on non-league club articles, the main reason being that they are rarely (if ever) updated and many have been left to become several years out of date (I found one that was over five years since the last udpate), which is especially problematic as non-league clubs also have a much higher turnover of players. I also have concerns about the reasons for wanting to edit the article (WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERT spring to mind). Cheers, Number 57 15:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman And Just to let you know that the squad list is sourced, If you go to heybridgeswiftsfc.com and then click on first team, you will find our squad. Therefore it is sourced, but I just found it easier to be more creative and do it the way I had originally before Number57 here decided to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@HeybridgeSwiftUltra: i think the concern was, a football team in football pyramid 7-8, it don't need information of a squad list that full of red link. People can always obtained the squad list on the official club website, but not always needed in wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 15:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

But Matthew, despite us being at such a low level in the pyramid, that shouldn't stop us from putting up our squad list like any other club. It's unfair that we cannot do this. But If any of you can help me verify it then I'd be grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

except your username may indicate to change (as an impression to link to HeybridgeSwift directly, as people less known "Ultra" is), you can always edit the article, given reliable source and at least one or two blue-linked professional footballer in the squad. Matthew_hk tc 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have 3 blue linked players. Lewis Dark, Kreshnic Krasniqi and Ricky Sappleton. But how do you give the reliable source (I don't know where to put it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) It would be unfair not to have a squad list if every club at this level had one and Heybridge didn't, but that's not the case – only two clubs in the division have squad lists. Number 57 16:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well can you help me verify the table then. This could've been over with a couple of hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because I still don't think the article should have a squad list. Number 57 16:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason I've been explaining since before 2pm: Squad lists are not generally a good idea for non-league clubs as they are rarely updated and often left to become years out of date. I appreciate that you are keen to edit the article and have promised repeatedly that you'll keep it updated, but in my experience that rarely happens in practice. Perhaps if you want to demonstrate this isn't a passing interest, then sticking around for a few months and improving some of the (pretty woeful) articles on Swifts players would be a good start. Number 57 16:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know that we have James Colsanti as our new media officer. If you know who he is then I'd advise you shut it. Because we are a club on the rise. Our programme is better then ever. Our stadium has been improved with new sponsors such as First Call and UK Packaging. We have new kits which are superb as they've been created by new sponsors SX Sports. Just because your a sudbury fan doesn't mean you can comment on the club in a disrespectful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeybridgeSwiftUltra (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who James Colosanti is, and I'm not sure why it matters. However, I would advise you to read WP:CIVIL. As for your Twitter comments about me disrespecting your club, I actually recently expanded the article, including adding the ground section, several more records and the club's history prior to entering the ESL. Number 57 17:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

How about we let the new user add the squad list, and then give it a while to see if it is kept up-to-date, and then remove it if it isn't? To "blanket ban" squad lists from non-league article because sometimes they aren't updated seems unnecessarily harsh........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think a blanket ban because of previous updating issues (which I can totally understand) is a bit of an overreaction. I'd say as long as it's sourced and dated properly, why not? If you see a squad list which is a year or more out of date, then no problem with removing it. Also, I doubt this attitude encourages new editors to edit and participate, which is a shame. --SuperJew (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a few hundred non-league articles on my watchlist and I'd say about 10 have regular squad updates, all by editors who have been doing it for years. I am aware that that having material deleted can be offputting, so I was trying to encourage the editor in question to do something like improving articles on the club's players, many of which are pretty poor, but they didn't seem interested. Also, there is a very high turnover of players at clubs this low down the pyramid, so even within a few months it will be quite out of date; leaving it a year is not ideal if we aim to be an accurate encyclopedia. Number 57 21:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand your concern truly Number 57, but I don't think this is the way to solve it. Give it a month or two, and in the meantime believe the new editor :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the article's on my watchlist, so let's see what happens. Number 57 21:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ayrius Justin

I am wondering if the subject meets WP:NFOOTY. I'm thinking of PRODing this article but wanted to check here first. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong sport. Kante4 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Try WT:AMF, WT:NFL or WT:CFB :) --SuperJew (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well we can certainly agree that he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and corrections! I will try WT:AMF. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Nonconstructive edits at Stefano Bonomo

I'm on the brink of an edit war and I wanted to get the community's input on this situation. I mentioned recently concerns about an IP's edits, and now another user has restored the nonconstructive edits. Can somebody help me to address these issues? Jay eyem (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

what is non-constructive in listing particular matches in which a player scored goals? In the playoffs, league etc., removal of that is just a personal decision which has nothing to do with the article. Elopez76

Not every goal is important. First goal, goal in a final or so, but not all goals. Hatrick can be added back, but nothing else. We had those discussions about that before. Kante4 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of the pros and cons of the content dispute, it would be nice to see some discussion (or attempted discussion) at the article talk page, rather than both users reverting. It would also be nice to see less use of vandalism in edit summaries when referring to content disputes. Gricehead (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for jumping the gun by using vandalism, I've gone back and read WP:VANDAL. How do I deal with this situation when it is an IP making these kinds of disruptive edits? Jay eyem (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
And fwiw, I've read WP:GAME and I think that's a legitimate concern to consider here. Both on Bonomo and Florian Valot. Jay eyem (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Same with Ben Mines, apparently. Jay eyem (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Elopez76: - this is an encylopedia, not a sports almanac/tabloid paper. It is WP:NOTNEWS - we do not report every game or goal. GiantSnowman 17:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue persists, specifically at Ben Mines. @Elopez76: you need to participate here instead of just reverting the edits of an admin. Jay eyem (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Franco Zuculini

Was just adding some sources to this chap's article, then i looked at the box/Verona storyline and had to click on the sources. I know some Italian, and from the looks of it he signed two deals without mentioning any renewals or previous loan, just that the club "acquired his sporting rights" on 8 JULY 2016 and then they "acquired his sporting rights" AGAIN on 12 JULY 2017. Me not understand (but the box does show two different spells)...

Attentively, thanks in advance for any "enlightment" on the matter --Quite A Character (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The two spells may merge to one as the contract was signed after the new season that started on 1 July 2017 (as a free agent) but not the practical date of the start of season (may started pre-season but definitely way above round 1 of Serie A) Italian: acquisito le prestazioni sportive may just the fancy word for signing a contract, or third party ownership, so get ridge of them. Matthew_hk tc 23:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Uw-live updates

Hello WikiProject Football,

I would like you to take a look at a template I have done - Template:Uw-live updates since I have noticed that many editors have updated stats during sports matches.

See what you think of that and wondering if it may be added to the Twinkle category. This would be, in a way, distinguishing live updates warnings from unconstuctive. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan:, it would be worth linking to, and adapting the text from the relevant section in the Manual of Style WP:LIVESCORES. Hack (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Steaua vs Steaua

I am aware most of you are well aware of the current disputes involving FC Steaua București and CSA Steaua București (football) and are sick of the whole thing, but the fact remains that there is a whole lot of mess to clear up. Regardless of your opinion of which entity is entitled to claim which honours, it is a fact that both articles show a long list of trophies won by that entity, including officers course the 1986 European Cup. This cannot be true, so needs to be resolved, and the existing process of talk pages clearly hasn't worked as it has become a bipartisan slagging match, and the decision to lock the CSA Steaua article is also a move which solves nothing other than preventing further tit for tat edit wars; I have to infer from the lock that the admins who made the decision feel the CSA Steaua article is perfect as it is, so they need to have the courage to remove the duplicated information from the FC Steaua article. I don't think that would be the correct decision, but to lock one article while leaving the other article involved open and showing the same disputed content seems contradictory.

The other thing which I feel is pretty clear cut is that UEFA refer to the entity competing in their competitions this season as FCSB, and that entity are forbidden by law from using the term Steaua to refer to themselves, so it is much more serious than a standard WP:COMMONNAME debate. So it is certainly questionable that the article for that entity is still named Steaua București despite the club itself being banned from doing so, but furthermore the articles relating to that club's current activity should, in my mind, at least be piped from FCSB. They can't call themselves Steaua in a current context, so why is Wikipedia doing so? Articles relating to the past are a different matter. Crowsus (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

History need to fix, redirect target need to fix, article name need to fix, what else? Matthew_hk tc 14:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult. Maybe history (up to creation of FCSB, 2017?) should be split and linked from both artilces (so there is less redundancy). There is nothing wrong in writing both clubs claim the history and titles. We don't have to decide. What happend to players of Steaua anyway, did they all remain in the club that is now FCSB. And what do you think of this intro? -Koppapa (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there should be a third page created for 'Steaua 1947-2003', similar to the above idea, allowing both current entities to link to the previous honours involved, at least until this dispute is resolved fully with appropriate refs (editors on both sides appear to be using the two current entities' own biased websites and Romanian-language fan blogs to reinforce their arguments). Historic tournament articles could also link to this third page, while the current FCSB page can be thus renamed as legally required to do, without old Steaua stuff linking to a page of another title causing confusion. Not ideal but at least then the focus can be on correcting the articles for the two current teams, which most people seem to agree began in 2003 and 2017 respectively although they both claim past glories as theirs. Alternatively the 'seasons' article or the 'history' article could be the location of this compromise instead of making any more articles for the purposes?

I would also like to point out that A) the Steaua Bucharest article (or FCSB if you prefer) is deemed to be of 'high importance' to the project so I would encourage as many editors and possible to become involved constructively in this and help to sort it out, and B) the CSA Steaua article which was admin-protected now no longer is, which will amost certainly lead to more edit wars in the short term. Crowsus (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Who knows if it will help, but I have now added a split suggestion here for the post-2003 club to get a new article, leaving the original Steaua article as a historic entity which both current teams can claim to be without either 'owning it' on their side. That seems a more logical idea than what I suggested earlier about creating a new article for the old club, and less controversial than the status quo. Crowsus (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It just look like a Republic of China and Macedonia version in football. At least Bohemians 1905 and FK Bohemians Prague (Střížkov) was easier to fix as one club (the new one) had less popularity, or in Italy, they did not very overlap from each other and totally legit to the two articles for (illegitimate) phoenix club and mother club. But in Steaua case, it was based on media and fans who consider which one as the successor instead of contractual rights or legal person. Matthew_hk tc 21:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely not an easy one. As I think you have stated previously, the legal successor appears to be CSA Steaua; but UEFA have made things more difficult by taking the easier option, saying the team which keeps qualifying for their competitions and used to be called Steaua must be the team that gets credited with the trophies Steaua won, even though they happily no longer call them by that name (probably to save face since they never questioned the matter and kept the coefficient and licence going following the 2003 change of owner). I think FCSB should have their own article out of fairness, since someone decided that CSA 2017 needed to have one. Then they can both fight over Old Steaua without the old stuff being updated by anything either of the new clubs does, until the matter is resolved by the courts, governing bodies etc beyond all doubt (if that ever happens??). Crowsus (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
For UEFA, it seem they assume the continuity by football actives and the transfer of membership between legal person, but not accepting new CSKA Sofia, which somewhat a loophole of bankruptcy and restart another new company with new membership.[10] Matthew_hk tc 08:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Arsenal F.C. season

There seems to be a current dispute at this article as to whether the Charity Shield game should be coloured yellow (to indicate a draw) or green (to indicate a win). Technically speaking, the result of the game was a draw (a penalty shoot-out does not form part of the game it follows but is an "extra element" to determine who progresses to the next round of a tournament or claims a trophy), but @Sport and politics: is of the opinion that the game should be regarded as a win because Arsenal won the shield. The thoughts of other editors would be appreciated, not least because this may impact on other such articles where teams won trophies via a shoot-out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Should be yellow (to indicate a draw). The consensus on Wikipedia (and most stats sites) is to regard penalty shoot-outs as draws. --SuperJew (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same as if in a 2-legged final team A would win the first match 5–0 but lose the second match 1–0 we wouldn't mark the second match as a win. The outcome of one match doesn't imply the outcome of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I noticed that their defeat on penalties in the 2000 UEFA Cup final is categorised as a draw here. For statistical purposes, matches like this are usually recorded a draw. Number 57 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the colour be regarded as the final outcome including penalties. So cups and cup finals shouldn't have draw colour at all, the colour should be representing the process to the trophy. Govvy (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is recorded as a draw. Kante4 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Statistically speaking, it's a draw. Yes, they won the trophy, but the match itself was a draw. – PeeJay 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The match was designed not to be able to end in a draw. I am particularly sensitive to the Community/Charity Shield, as previously the game did end in a draw and the trophy was shared. This is in my opinion a much narrower issue than all trophies. The trophy here was not shared as it had been previously. Indicating the match ended in a draw could and potentially does cause confusion; thinking Chelsea and Arsenal shared the trophy, as it was done previously. Here the match played to a winner of the shield and any confusion should be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Except the match itself did end in a draw. The penalty shoot-out, although it happens on the same day at the same venue immediately following the match, is not technically part of the match, it simply determines who is considered to have won the competition and who receives the trophy. But technically, there was no winner of the match. – PeeJay 10:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
That is kind of confusing logic to a lot of people, you could also say "technically penalty shootouts are now the final part of a match." For cup games a complete match can go from normal time, to extra time, to injury time, to penalty shootout. Saying that penalty shootouts are not part of the match seems wrong. In cup games a match is not finished until the final out come has been resolved. (This is win or loose). Govvy (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
That isn't correct. The match finishes when the ref blows the final whistle. In the event of the match being a draw, an additional element (the shoot-out, or in days gone by a coin-toss) then occurs to decide which team progresses to the next round, but this does not form part of the match, per Questions and Answers on The Laws of the Game (see pages 38 and 40) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This is also the reason why goals scored in shoot-outs are not included in players' career stats - because they didn't occur during a match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need to go into the legality of the match in a cup competition, the question was about the colour to represent a draw over a win. However this is cup competition, I think the question here is what consensus to use when displaying the final outcome in a cup competition. The overall goal in a cup competition regardless of the main match being finished in a draw, should you be representing the draw colour like we do in the league or simply the colour of win or less for the final outcome of the match. I would prefer to go for the latter in displaying this. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It should display a draw because it was one, simple as that. As all other editors pointed out. Kante4 (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The match should be indicated as a draw, the penalty shoot-out does not change the final result after 90 or 120 minutes. Marking these matches as wins creates inconsistencies with cases such as two-legged ties. If a team won the first leg 1–0, and lost the second leg 0–1 before ultimately winning on penalties, marking the second leg as a win would be nonsensical and misleading. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a fundamental is being lost here. Are the season articles statistics farms, where everything is for the benefit of stats counting. Or are they hyper accurate representations of how the matches in a season turned out, with the end result and not the 90/120 minutes score being the win/draw/loss.

The main issue here is, what is least confusing to the lay reader? Would the outside lay reader find a draw being shown as least confusing or a win/loss as least confusing.

There is some inconsistency with the arguments above. When does a match finish? Is it at 90 minutes or 120 minutes, when extra time is played? See here for extra time being classed as a win.

I am of the opinion that at least trophies which were previously shared should be shown as win/loss when not shared. In this case the Community Shield would be covered.

For other trophy competition matches, I think it is preferable to show the matches as win/loss. In leagues where matches play to a finish, i.e. requisite leagues in Japan or USA, it should be win/loss shown. For though two legged matches where the game ends in a draw and then a tie-breaker is used, that should be recorded as a draw. I.e. won on away goals, or penalties. This is quite confusing as it currently stands. Sport and politics (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes extra-time is part of the match, and the goals scored in extra-time are counted in a player's career stats. Penalty shoot-outs aren't part of the match, and penalties scored in a penalty shoot-out are not counted in a player's career stats. The history of the trophy has no relevance on the current format. If you think it might confuse the outside lay reader, you are welcome to add some prose explaining it. As many editors have replied to you already, the outcome of a match isn't necessarily correlated with the outcome of the trophy/leg. --SuperJew (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's move on as there is clear consensus here. Kante4 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Ben Mines

Can I please get an administrator to address the editing going on here? I really hate to nitpick, but I don't think an individual's first playoff goal is considered notable under WP:NOTNEWS and I would like some confirmation by an admin. The same IP as before User:199.102.113.10 continues to revert the page in a nonconstructive editing sequence. Jay eyem (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, sorry for being nitpicky, but I’m trying to avoid an edit war. Can I revert a playoff goal as non-notable under WP:NOTNEWS without getting into any trouble? Ive reverted it twice already. Jay eyem (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Quite frankly it's not worth getting into an edit war over. Discuss it with the user on the articles talk page, quoting relevant guidelines and examples of other articles and get some buy in. If they remain obstinate, forget about it. In a couple of years he might have scored a few more goals, his article will have expanded, and you can then give it a nice tidy up. For a player such as this with little real achievement having an extra goal listed and referenced isn't going to break the encyclopaedia. ClubOranjeT 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of what I figured, thanks for the response. I'm just going to take the page off my watchlist. Jay eyem (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

question about national years in the infobox

I apologise in advance if this has been asked already recently. If a player is called up to the national squad in a certain year (let's say 2015), but doesn't make their debut until a year or more later (say they debut in 2017), which year should be the start year in the infobox? --SuperJew (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Year should be the year he made his debut. That is why the national team is not listed until the debut took place. Kante4 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually it's a her in this case :) Thank you! --SuperJew (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
i know it may be confusing for second goalkeeper, but other outfield problem usually did not have that problem. For a second goalkeeper that never made a debut but sit on the bench for his country for many year, it look crude that don't left any record in infobox. Matthew_hk tc 19:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it's first cap year to last cap year for the infobox. I had a similar one (also a female player), she 'only' got 30 caps across a 10 year career but was on the bench in about 30 more including several before her first appearance and after her last, thought that was worth a mention so i put it into the prose with a few exemplary refs showing full squads (the main sources for her only showed the games where she actually played). Someone has to be the sub! Crowsus (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Just like crude for those just played in Brazilian state league and go abroad form Brazil, is there adding footnote or adding description to the lead a possible solution? Matthew_hk tc 19:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Eizmendi brothers

I've created both Alain and Eneko Eizmendi, but I (more correctly @Quite A Character) found out that the latter never played in any level higher than Segunda División B (not available for creation through WP:FPL). The latter article can stay due to WP:GNG or it should be deleted? MYS77 ✉ 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Eneko meets WP:GNG. If you want to delete it, then we can do so per WP:G7. GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I spotted a bit about their father and have stuck it onto Alain's page. Obviously it would apply to Eneko too, but have left it out due to the above. Crowsus (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Question/doubt: in some cases, the subject is allowed to have an article even though they never played in Segunda División (remaining in the topic of Spanish sportspeople) or higher because there is enough media coverage about them. Diego Cervero seems to have been one of those cases (and keep in mind, article was accepted long before he made his pro debut at the age of 32), my humble question is what is the difference between Mr. Cervero and Eneko Eizmendi (i assume - if not i AM SURE - there are dozens of Spanish reliable newspaper/web articles about the twins, whose family happens to have an extensive relation with football)?
Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It can't be speedy-deleted because more people than just its creator have made substantial edits to it, so there'll be time to work on it if you think it's worth it.
If anyone takes it to WP:AfD, you'll need to demonstrate that there's enough significant coverage of Eneko Eizmendi (not just the novelty value of "the twins" or "the family") in reliable sources independent of the subject to pass the basic notability criteria. What that means is, stuff about the person himself, not just match reports or what his club did. I don't think the two pieces offered at the Cervero AfD would be enough for a no consensus these days. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I will open an AfD about Eneko, then we should gather some consensus about the article itself. MYS77 ✉ 19:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge club world championship

There is a request at Talk:FIFA_Club_World_Cup#Titles_merge_with_Intercontintal_Cup to merge the FIFA Club World Cup and Intercontinental Cup (football) articles. Both articles are pretty big so I hope several users contribute. Personally I wouldn't merge these (yet), but I don't know. The UEFA Cup and Europa League as well as CL and European Cup are covered in one article too. -Koppapa (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

Browsing through some articles, it seems that the correct display for the translation field in foreign sources is now "trans-title" as opposed to the previous "trans_title". Is there any way to adjust this situation automatically (bot), or does it have to be performed manually (that would be a bummer)?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to still work anyways (though might show a warning note, but I'm not sure if that's only in the preview), so I wouldn't waste time changing it manually. I am pretty sure though that a bot could fix them.. but I don't have the tech knowledge for it. Maybe have a look at WP:BOTQUEST --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
If someone programs a bot to change this, then also "accessdate" should be changed to "access-date", "archiveurl" to "archive-url" etc. --Jaellee (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I just discovered the field |script-title= if there is bot or AWB script to use, I desperately need it to cleanup Chinese and Japanese and potentially adding |trans-title= Matthew_hk tc 18:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure an experienced bot operator will attend to this issue in time. I wouldn't worry about it for now. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

I see that the {{Reflist}} template now defaults to two or three columns, depending on the browser. How many references are needed before this happens? 92.26.171.171 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's ten or more. Kosack (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It will go to columns at 11. I'd really urge people to stop adding |30em to the reflist template, and instead remove it whenever it's found. Forcing a small number of references into columns is often counterproductive (it's quite common to end up with the same number of rows of text as references end up being split over two or three rows, which just makes them more difficult to read). Number 57 12:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Slow speedy deletion

Could any admin about please review Mohammed Dawood Yaseen‎? The WP:G4 speedy deletion nomination of this article has been pending for a week now. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have declined this on the grounds that there are sufficient changes to the article that I don't think it is appropriate for csd. I'm not saying the subject is notable, but there are more sources added this time, admittedly some of them primary, that I don't feel comfortable just removing it, particularly given that GNG would have to be sought in Arabic. I'm not saying by doing this though that the player is notable. Fenix down (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Steven N'Zonzi

Hello to all. If someone here has the time, could it be possible to change Nzonzi's name on (and inside) his page ? L'Équipe just released an article on the matter, saying the N'Zonzi spelling is a common mistake and should be written Nzonzi. Thanks! Tuttiseme (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tuttiseme: Seems reasonable, particularly as the original source for the name doesn't have the apostrophe. I've opened a page move request to make sure there are no objections to a rename. Nzd (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Born name in infobox

Hi everyone, I have a important question. Should we accept thiskind of edit, I mean this kind of parameter "| birth_name =" for a player which contains a name different from his birth name? Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it's supported by the infobox syntax, so I see no technical problem. Of course it needs to also appear in the prose of the page and be supported with a verifiable reference (as doesn't seem to be the case here). My bad, it is supported in text and referenced. Would keep it in this case. --SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_112&oldid=1078907726"