Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 136

Archive 130

←

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

→

Archive 140

The or no The

So, I've noticed myself when referring to clubs, subconsciously adding the word "the" when referring to teams with a 'nickname' as part of their official name versus teams with a more common name. I just noticed myself doing this without thinking since in my head it was just what sounded correct and was wondering what should be done for these teams, particularly North American teams. Teams with just an FC or similar, I don't use the 'the', but with other teams I do. For example, I noticed my writing has been like such: Player X plays for FC Dallas or Player Y scored his first goal against FC Dallas versus Player A plays for the Seattle Sounders or in a match against the Seattle Sounders... I feel like the correct way to do this would be to omit the "the" even though grammatically it might sound better, so its consistent. This has probably been discussed before. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's all to do with countable nouns and definite articles and the rules very much depend on the situation. In short, when it's wrong it's wrong. When it's not wrong, then it doesn't mean its right but at least it is legible. For example "His first match for FC Dallas" is fine. "His first match for Dallas" is fine. "His first match for the FC Dallas" reads wonky and that is because Dallas is a single entity (you wouldn't say "I am going to the London" either, I hope). But if you read the guide to when to use the definite article it states to use it when the acronym is spelled out (which FC is) so clearly there is a conflict of the rules, and a primacy.

In contrast, The "Seattle Sounders" should have "the" because you are on about "the Sounders of Seattle". If his first game was against "Seattle" you would not use The typically. However if his first game was against "Sounders"... the urge to put the The in there is obvious. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

My question wasn't regarding Dallas. With FC Dallas I know not to use the, as its obviously wrong. My question was with the Seattle Sounders. Should it be "He plays for the Seattle Sounders" or "He plays for Seattle Sounders". If I just refer to the nickname, then yes I'd use the, but when using the full name is the question I have. A better example might be Richmond Kickers since technically the official name of Seattle is Seattle Sounders FC. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would say it also depends on the variety of English being used (US/UK/etc). No native British English speaker would ever say "Ben Garner is the manager of the Bristol Rovers"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As an example, in this article I recently editted Ralph Priso. In the playing career section, I wrote against Darby FC, but next sentence against the Richmond Kickers. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In the case of any club where they have a second name that is nominally referring to a plurality, using "The" beforehand is correct. That would include "the Bristol Rovers". The use of the THE places the emphasis on the second part of the name and treats the first part as a locator i.e. "for the Bristol Rovers" = "for The Rovers of Bristol". However, in the UK (and other places) the whole name of the team is treated as a compound noun i.e. "For Bristol Rovers" = "For BristolRovers". Also most UK people might not use the "The" for Bristol because of learnt habit alone to refer to towns as singular entities. However The Millwall Lionesses buck that trend and do use "The"[1] Prior to the start of the 2019/20 campaign, the Millwall Lionesses are delighted to announce our new club captain and other members of our new squad. So, in short, the rule is fluid.

Another factor to consider is that in the US the "nickname" is often uniquely identifying, and that emphasis on nicknames and branding is quite strong. As such the Kickers follows the same principle as the Sounders. You are referring to the "Kickers of Richmond" so would "the" it to fit the common parlance. However it isn't wrong without it either although it may sound strange. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate to say it - because it will be difficult for most editors to do unless they are local - it would be based on common usage. So the Seattle Sounders and the Montreal Impact but just Toronto FC and Tottenham Hotspur. At least based on my attendance at Sounders (but not the Sounders), Impact, and TFC games. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Should "loan" be linked in the lede?

Take Álvaro Morata, should the lede read: "..., on loan from La Liga club Atlético Madrid,..."? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think so. It shows that Juventus doesn't own his rights, but rather Atletico RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My question is: should it be loan or loan? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I should've caught that. Maybe I shouldn't be editting Wiki at 10pm, must be too late for me RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see any particularly compelling reason for it not to be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a common English word, being used normally, so WP:OVERLINK. Spike 'em (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Although it is a relatively common word, the sporting context is different to the general term. Player loans are relatively uncommon in sports other than football so, for the uninitiated, I don't see any issue in linking it in the same way we do with things like penalty or extra time. Kosack (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The meanings of "penalty" and "extra time" relate specifically to play in the game of football. A loan in football is one entity granting temporary use of an asset to another entity, which is one of the usual English meanings of loan. Spike 'em (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Penalty shot and Overtime (sports), where these articles are generally linked, are probably more well known terms given their widespread use in more sports than the loan system is. The question is, would a reader who had no interest in football understand how a player could be loaned between clubs? That's not a 100% certainty I would say, which is why, as Chris noted, there is no reason not to link it. I'm not saying we should, it's probably more trouble than it's worth trying to implement across all articles. Kosack (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not link per WP:OVERLINK as suggested above. GiantSnowman`

Yeah I think it is overlink.--EchetusXe 11:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it should be linked. This is a subject-specific term that many readers will not understand. And why are we drawing a distinction between linking the term in the lead than to the rest of the article? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't link it in the body either. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Any reason? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree it shouldn't be linked, we're suppose to avoid linking too common terminology, country names, numbers and dates. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Same here, should not be linked. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously common terminology to us; after all, we edit football articles on an online encyclopaedia. But a lot of casual readers will not understand the concept of a player being "loaned" to another club. And I still don't understand why we're applying a different standard to linking in the lead than to the body of the article. Why does it need linking in the body but not in the lead? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward common terminology, and it's pretty straight forward, everyone knows you loan a book from a library to return it later, same terminology for football, you're making a big fuss out of nothing if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Google loan definition : loan; noun; a thing that is borrowed... or verb; lend (a sum of money or item of property).

or lend definition : lend; verb; grant to (someone) the use of (something) on the understanding that it will be returned.

This is a clear use of a common english word with its normal, everyday meaning. Spike 'em (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So where do we stand on this? Are we to implement a blanket ban on linking to Loan (sports), seeing as it's seemingly taken for granted that all our readers understand the sporting context of the term? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As a compromise I'd say, at most, link only once in the article (but not in the lede). GiantSnowman 09:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT WAR INITIATION AND POTENTION POWER ABUSING FROM :@Mattythewhite:

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

---

A potential power abusing of Mattythewhite and EDIT WAR INITIATION at Kristoffer Ajer. I gave my explanation on why soccerbase/eurorivals is the better source at revision 962902990 summary. Instead of providing a good explanation, :@Mattythewhite: constantly revert my edit with an absolutely reasonable reason : "Soccerway is a better source" since June. From my pov only, isn't this an edit war act ? Undergroundmall (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Without looking into this too closely, the first thing I see in your edit summaries is a load of abuse. F this, f that. You don’t help your case. See WP:CIVIL.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That on and off again edit-war has been going on since June! It's gets disturbing when two sources that Undergroundmall to one source that Matty keeps restoring, which could technically be wrong, for an admin to continue to restore a source that could be wrong is very bad form. On top of that Matty should of got another admin to way in, simply carrying the way he is did against that abuse is really bad form. It also seems to be that Undergroundmall should really have a three day block to cool down or something! This could easily be raised to an WP:ANI issue. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Beat me to block, but they have been blocked indefinately for PA, and quite the tirade on Matty's talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Sourcing and heights

Incidentally, going back to the sources, either Soccerway or Soccerbase are fine, so no need to switch away from Soccerway (contrary to what this user was saying). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they are both providing different data I wouldn't use a source at all at that point. I went to the Celtic website, tried to click on the player profiles, but that didn't work! It wasn't even flushed out on the talk page there. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Soccerbase are notoriously poor for player heights, whereas Soccerway are usually on the ball. Unfortunately, the user mentioned above was not interested in hearing that. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that Soccerbase isn't really very good at all for heights. However, Mr Ajer's national team profile gives a height, which ought to be more likely accurate than a general database. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird how heights are such a hot button issue for some people.--EchetusXe 14:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Because taller means better. I have never seen an edit war on anyone less than 6' by the way. Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the visibility of his edit summary be changed? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that, you can still see the swearing in the summary! I was wondering if one height is an earlier record and the taller height is the current, as people tend to grow!! All the sources need to be reviewed, and see which one might be the most recent. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Most sources and pretty much all the other Wikis put his height at 1.98 M. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't too worried about the swearing, the content of the posts was the concerning thing. I tend not to hide swearing unless it's part of something more egregious. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

He returns with a new username

Not very subtle. Koncorde (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Text on maps

I'm wondering what we should in cases like this, where the text for some club names overlap? I don't think shortening the names (e.g. Braintree Town to Braintree) is ideal as we ought to be explicit that we're referring to the club rather than the location and it creates inconsistency. However, text that overlaps and is difficult to read is obviously an accessibility issue. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I only see one instance of overlapping in the map? SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There have been some subsequent edits. 2020–21 National League#National League South is a better example. Though really, why do we need "Hemel Hampstead Town" and "Slough Town" when "Hemel Hampstead" and "Slough" were sufficient and more readable. I don't see how this was an improvement. Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically, each club is a town, so you only really need the town name don't you? Govvy (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the list of the London clubs should be moved on the map to maybe above ... Isles of Scilly there. Govvy (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Do the London club names need to be listed on the main map, if they're not in the proper location, especially since there is a submap right next to it? I like the style done here in League1 Ontario (scroll down a small bit to see map). Teams listed with partial names (ie. not writing United), and then a single dot in a different colour for an area with multiple teams that says see submap. RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point really, you don't really need all the blue bullet points in the bigger map. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Make the map a bit bigger, use {{nowrap}}, move the labels around a bit....

The maps for this division look terrible for at least the last 5 years, haven't the article editors ever noticed this when they create them?Spike 'em (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It was me asking User:Mattythewhite why he'd recently made the maps so unreadable on his talk page, that lead him to start this thread. I'd have assumed he'd would just have reverted his edits. I clean them up a bit from time-to-time when they are problematic ... but a conscious decision to make them overlap so much was unusual. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We seem to have found a solution that works, with the full club names being displayed in an accessible manner. So I'm unsure why you continue to berate me? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How have I berated you, User:Mattythewhite? Please apologize for your AGF failure. Have we sorted this? So many maps are unfixed from your edits. There's been no explanation on why you did this, or timeline on when you are going to fix these. And have we dealt with the root cause? Why, for example, in the blow-up map of Manchester, do we need to change the dot for "FC United" to "F.C. United of Manchester - how does this make the map of Manchester clearer? Are they other FC United's in Manchester that this could get confused with? Why did you choose to put "FC United of" over 2 lines instead of one? You've barely participated in this discussion. I politely approached you on your talk page, rather than simply reverting your map edits - as I assume you had a reason for doing it. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say this is sorted, as a solution has been presented to allow club names to be presented accessibly. Now that's been established, I'll go through the ones I edited that resulted in overlapping text.

I added the dots to FC United because "FC" is an initialism of "Football Club". The reason I made these edits to begin with was to amend the names of some clubs, including AFC Telford United and AFC Fylde, which are not initialisms. I was not aware at the time of the affects this had on the text in the maps.

I initiated the discussion here to seek opinions from editors with more technical knowledge than me, and that's what's happened. I hadn't seen the need to play a more active role in participation. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the dots were different ... I was referring to adding "of Manchester" on the Manchester map, which turned a clear one-line label into a three-line label - and edits of that ilk. As for initials - are they in common use? I'd expect only locals would know. Toronto FC is always Toronto FC and not just Toronto. But Seattle Sounders FC is often just Seattle Sounders. And Chelsea FC is more often just Chelsea. But FC United (whether they be dotty or not) is never just Manchester ... or United of Manchester (or Manchester United)! It will be a difficult game to fix all those, because on an expert on one team, probably doesn't have a clue about most other teams. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD and requested merge simultaneously?

FC Rapid București strip is currently subject to a requested merge but there is a possibly valid argument to delete as well as suggested by User:Crowsus in that discussion. Are we allowed to put the article up for AfD or do we need to wait a certain number of days/weeks because there is a merge discussion in place? Spiderone 08:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate at AFD. An AFD can result in a merge, but a merge discussion can't justifiably result in a delete, if that is the consensus... GiantSnowman 10:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Rangers

I've been given this info by an editor. Are we not allowed to copyedit anymore? - Seasider53 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest not making all the changes in one edit but to separate them into multiple smaller edits. Putting all changes in one makes them harder to review – and revert, if necessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53 did this, but it seems the other editor has ownership issues. If you check the article history, they reverted everything and then went ahead and redid most of the edits again. Comparing the reverting edit above to the current version: [2] there is 1 thing that the reverter actually objects to. Spike 'em (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The other editor has a history of removing "F.C." from the clubname parameter across multiple club articles. The MOS actually had F.C. in the clubname parameter, but was removed without consensus here. It would be good if we could have this restored to the MOS without an edit war being triggered. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese competitions

First the Segunda Liga, then the LigaPro and now the Liga Portugal 2? I can't remember it correctly, but i think it's the Iranian top tier that has had six or seven article names since i edit here.

Shouldn't we be consistent and name the tournaments (in Portugal's case) Primeira Liga and Segunda Liga? Just a doubt, not belittling anyone's work.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we use whatever then official names are. GiantSnowman 07:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

This guy keeps removing the mascot section which is completely sourced. I'm done with the disruptive editor, can someone else deal with him. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. If he comes back let me know and I'll block. GiantSnowman 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've also responded to his (unsigned) comment on the talk page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: He's still doing it. (And also appears to be unfamiliar with how to use talk pages. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

They've gone quiet over night, and their final edit wasn't a pure revert, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now...I've also left another message for them. GiantSnowman 07:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid he hasn't learned @GiantSnowman:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Less important side issue, can someone fix whatever is keeping the archive from working. I couldn't tell what the problem was when I looked. Equineducklings (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a clue but I've manually archived. GiantSnowman 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like two sets of different archive code there on the page. Maybe they are cancelling out each other? Not sure know. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source question: fchd.info, Soccerway and Soccerbase

Hello all. I know the three sources above are used almost ubiquitously by the project, but can someone provide me with evidence (or consensus of) their reliability please? A reasonable question on the editorial oversight of each source has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Football League First Division play-off Final/archive1. Cheers in advance. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Soccerbase is Racing Post, and Soccerway is Centurycomm. FCHD used to be an editor here... GiantSnowman 16:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Player club statistics

I was sure we were supposed to list the seasons in chronological order. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, shouldn't it be "2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12", instead of "2010-11, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2011-12"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope; loan spells are not embedded within the parent club stats chronologically. The way it is at the MOS is correct. GiantSnowman 20:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I might be confusing the loan spells with the B teams. The A teams and B teams shouldn't be "grouped" (as we would do with loans and parent clubs), right? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

B team stats should not be embedded in the A team stats either. GiantSnowman 12:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Giovani dos Santos

The stats table is completely out of date if anyone wants to take it on, soccerway seems to be accurate, soccerbase hasn't been keeping up. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

His brother Éder dos Santos might be one of the greatest ever goalscoring defensive midfielders, if you believe his Wikipedia page. Hack (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

349 goals in 360 appearances?? That can't be right! Govvy (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It was previously even more unlikely - 155 goals in 483 appearances in five years. Hack (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Éder doesn't seem super notable - 26 minutes in the Mexican second tier. Hack (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the table. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking for archivists

I've been editing netball articles recently. The equivalent project page is inactive, so I thought I'd look for some expertise here. Recently started Australian Institute of Sport (netball). However in the last week or so, a load of links to www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au disappeared. This was a valuable resource. I have left messages at various archivists looking for help but got no reply. Any help would be appreciated. Djln Djln (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Djln Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports might be able to help. There was a similar issue with sportsreference.com, an Olympics site, a few months ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Joseph2302, I will leave a message there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djln (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Linking League in Career Statistics table

I know according to the MOS, we only link the league in the Career Stats box the first time it appears and any subsequent appearances we just leave in normal black font. What about a situation where the League changes names though. For example, the Portuguese second division which was called Liga da Honra, then in 2012 Segunda Liga, then in 2016 LigaPro, then now Liga Portugal 2. For example, this player played in it when it was called Liga da Honra then a few years later returned when it was called Segunda Liga. Should it be linked for both name variants which would direct to the same article, for readers who wouldn't know they are the same league? RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would think that yes, per the logic of WP:EASTEREGG - "links as transparent as possible" --SuperJew (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the first instance of each name variant should be linked in the table. However, the link for the former name variant should not be piped to the current name variant per WP:NOTBROKEN. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

National Teams Template

Hi all,

The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams template doesn't bare much resemblance to any of the national team pages at the moment (besides the infobox) therefore I was hoping that people would have an opinion for how best to standardise these pages. I've put a template together on my sandbox (link in the Subject line) and would appreciate any suggestions, especially for the naming of each heading (and their subcategories), order they should come in, and any template tables that should be added that I've not already included. Felixsv7 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No thoughts / suggestions? Should Rivarlries be a subdivision of Team Image? What to call Managers/Head Coaches? Whether to nest managerial history beneath it? What priority Competitive Record should have? Should Head-to-Head record and FIFA rankings be included within that section? Is Records a subcategory of Players? Or should I just add it onto the current template? Cheers all Felixsv7 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection for current A-League season page

Hi, could an admin please protect 2020–21 A-League for the short-term (2 months) until the beginning of the season? IP's keep on adding rumoured players. --SuperJew (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Any admins? @GiantSnowman:? Here's the latest example. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew:  Done GiantSnowman 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

naming of clubs with defunct predecessors

If we have a club which dissolved in year X, then in year Y a club was reformed with the same name. How do we disambiguate between the names? I just saw Wacker Innsbruck which the current team is FC Wacker Innsbruck (2002) and the defunct is FC Wacker Innsbruck. OTOH there's Accrington Stanley which the current team is Accrington Stanley F.C. and the defunct is Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891). So do we have a regular convention for naming in such cases? --SuperJew (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IIRC we have the defunct club at XXX F.C. (YEAR OF FOUNDATION) and the current club at XXX F.C.. GiantSnowman 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: In that case Wacker Innsbruck should be switched around? Would you be able to do that (I think it will need admin privileges as it's a bit of a messy move and redirect). --SuperJew (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on prominence. If Man Utd went bust and they launched a non-league phoenix club, I would expect those clubs to be located at Manchester United F.C. and Manchester United F.C. (2021). I suggest you start a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We only keep separate articles if the new club isn't a continuation of the old one, right? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If the club goes bust and re-forms, then there are usually separate articles - but now always (see e.g. Bradford Park Avenue). No, I don't know why. GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally yes, though this can be difficult to figure out at times (especially with Italian teams, occasionally with English teams.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Italian teams were exactly my concern. See S.S.C. Bari who have been refounded three times, or Parma Calcio 1913 five times. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There should really be a general rule about that, now it is a total chaos. For one club we use news articles, for the other legal documents, for third FA or UEFA's site etc. as a main criterion whether it is one club or two. Now for instance we have one article for CSKA Sofia and than for other clubs in the same league that did exactly the same thing eg Etar, we have two articles. And there are numerous such inconsistent examples in eastern Europen leagues. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Goalkeeper & Manager stats questions

Has there ever been any discussion about including clean sheets in a goalkeeper's infobox stats and career stats section rather than goals? Obviously, scoring goals is really an outfield statistic and obviously a goalkeeper isn't rated/graded on how many goals he or she scores but how many they keep out. I know there are some instances of legendary goalscoring keepers like Rogério Ceni or the keeper who will get an odd header or fluke, bouncing long ball goal but I've never thought it really made sense that we include how many goals they score as the only definitive stat on their page. It would make more sense to me to include clean sheets or goals allowed (as done with managerial stats tables).

Separately, on managerial stats tables, has there ever been a discussion about including the record by season with each club rather than just overall record at each club? I think this would be useful. Thanks all. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, clean sheets comes up every so often, and the answer is 'no' - insufficient stats available, too confusing to display, WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 20:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Re: goalies the answer is yes, it has been discussed multiple times but always rejected, not least because such stats are exceptionally hard to find/source for almost all players who played any more than about 10 years ago (if anyone can quickly tell me how many clean sheets Peter Shilton kept I will be very impressed......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. I appreciate the insight. That was what I figured was probably the reason. Let me know about managerial statistics too as I think that could be a helpful addition. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't see that that would be a problem as long as the sourcing is there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Every season would be overkill for me. Kante4 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Goalkeepers have been known to score goals! 17 March 2007, Paul Robinson scored against Watford! That kind of voids the idea to add saves there in the infobox for goalkeepers. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of examples of outfield players playing in goal and even examples of goalkeepers playing outfield, with Jorge Campos playing there in the early parts of his career. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that some goalkeepers have scored goals, that's not really the issue. Rupert1904 is suggesting, not unreasonably, that because the percentage who score goals is so low, meaning that 99.99999% just have all 0s in their infobox, it might be more appropriate to replace that stat with one more pertinent to goalies. However, as noted above, any such stats are almost impossible to source, so not really a "go-er"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude - yes, this is exactly my point. There are just so many zeros in infoboxes and stats tables for goalkeepers it makes me ask why we should even record that for their position in the first place? Or at least why is it the singular stat we record on their article? It makes it look to people who are reading wikipedia and not as familiar with football as us or just curious about a player's career that goals scored is an important stat for a goalkeeper. I am not saying we should remove goals scored from a goalkeeper's article as that is a significant and notable moment in their careers and I even mentioned Rogerio Ceni who scored over 100 goals in his career. That's truly remarkable. And of course I remember Paul Robinson scoring; Tim Howard did the same, Peter Schmeichel scored a few too, Jens Lehmann, the list goes on. And I understand that sourcing this may be tough for vast majority of goalkeepers in the past but just wanted to have the discussion as this is a stat we record in club season articles and league season articles but not on player articles. Thanks for all the feedback on this. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Even for some current players, it would be hard to source. Take, for example, the current number one at my club. I can't point to a source that specifically says "Jack Bonham has kept N career clean sheets". The best I could do would be to go through his Soccerbase/Soccerway profile season-by-season and count the number of games where the opponents scored nil, but that's borderline OR. And also, I wouldn't necessarily pick up scenarios like last night when he was subbed off in our 1-0 defeat to Ipswich before the goal was scored. Which further begs the philosophical question - does that count as him keeping a clean sheet given that he only played for a third of the game......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha now that's a good question! I think both would get a clean sheet if the second goalie had not conceded any? Oh well. I guess we will continue with goals scored in keepers' stats tables and infoboxes for now... Rupert1904 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

On my website, I use the "fantasy PL" method: at least 60 minutes played. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above posts saying how clean sheets would be extremely difficult to source, particularly for non-recent years. Also agree that saves is not really the best either. Honestly, the goals being there for keepers when 99% don't score isn't ideal, but it's really the best we can do. Unless, maybe we just only put appearance and no goals? So it would say 2015-2018 56 . Just records appearances? Just a thought I just had. I'm not advocating for the change, the status quo is fine, but that could be an option imo. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Between having any sort of easily sourced info (goals) in the infobox, and not having anything at all, I would prefer the former. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

RedPatchBoy Definitely don't think it should be saves as that would be too tough to track and source and honestly a crapshoot. I was thinking either clean sheets or goals conceded in league games to be put in infobox – like how we currently have league appearances and league goals only in infobox. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to merge ?

• List of ES Sétif players with List of ES Sétif international footballers
• List of JS Kabylie players with List of JS Kabylie international footballers
• List of MC Alger players with List of MC Alger international footballers
• List of USM Alger players with List of USM Alger international footballers
• List of USM Blida players with List of USM Blida international footballers

Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, as the players lists include players with 100+ appearances, and international footballers as well. So the international footballers one is duplicate. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey national under-21 football team

Is Semih Şentürk really the most capped and best goalscorer of Turkey national under-21 football team with 83 caps and 42 goals. It was added in July 2008 to the article but the stats doesn't make sense to me. --Fredde (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Any player playing 83 times for a national u-21 team sounds highly unlikely to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

His only article gives the more plausible 21 caps..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Turkish wiki gives Nihat Kahveci as the player with most assists (32), and Berkant Göktan as the top scorer with 11 goals. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

PPG in standings template help

This is not something in which I am particularly experienced, so I could use some help. Major League Soccer just announced that they will be using points per game for their tables. I know this was recently done for the 2019–20 Ligue 1, so I was hoping someone more familiar with templates could help (the teams are currently not sorting in order). Relevant templates are these:

• Template:2020 Major League Soccer Eastern Conference table
• Template:2020 Major League Soccer Western Conference table
• Template:2020 Major League Soccer season table

Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Put |ranking_style=ppg as an argument after #invoke:Sports table|main|style=WDL. Cheers Gricehead (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I tried that, but it didn't sort automatically. I suppose the order needs to be done manually? That's what it looks like at Template:2019–20 Ligue 1 table. I was hoping to avoid that because it's a bit of a pain but if it needs to be done then so be it. Jay eyem (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll stand corrected, but I don't think Sports Table does any automatic sorting by points or by PPG. There's always a manual ordering. Gricehead (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes that right, you need to manually sort the teams regardless. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well it appears another user has taken care of it, but I will keep that bit about ordering in mind for the future. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Diallo or Traoré‎‎?

Amad Traoré‎‎ has more results on Google as "Traoré‎‎" (415k v 178k), but both Atalanta and Manchester United seem to call him "Diallo". Where should his page be located? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be at Amad Diallo, that's what he wants to be called and what he will be called from now on. Per here, here, and here. He updated his Instagram to remove the Traore. Based on this tweet he got Traore from a man who turned out to not be his father, which is why he's dropping it. He's legally changing his name to remove Traore. That's why there's more sources with Traore than Diallo because it's what he used to go by, but not anymore. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember hearing about the father scandal. I've moved the page to Amad Diallo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok apparently his legal name is now "Amad Diallo", effective as of September 2020. Should the fact he was called Traoré‎‎ be noted in some way in the lede? Maybe by writing "(né Amad Diallo Traoré; born 11 July 2002)"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, similar to Metta Sandiford-Artest would work. It would be same style with a former name. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

When did he actually start to be called "Traoré"? The article currently states that is his birth name, but is this actually the case? I don't have any sources other than a google translate of the Italian articles linked on his page and from those it is not apparent at what stage Mr Traore started to pose as his father. It may have been at birth, but unless we have a source that says so, I think the best we can do is say formerly known as Amad Diallo Traoré rather than born / né Amad Diallo Traoré. Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Live scores

Just a polite reminder (especially for @SBFCEdit: making questionable edits like this) that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished, or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended. That avoids any confusion/well meaning editors inadvertently adding false stats etc. GiantSnowman 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: A couple more here today here and here. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I've reverted all of their edits from today. In retaliation he is now reverting my valid edits (Kiltie has been substituted so my update was correct and valid!), being WP:POINT and WP:DICK. GiantSnowman 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It turns out that @SBFCEdit: has been doing this for at least 2 years!. There are definite WP:CIR issues here. GiantSnowman 15:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Perhaps a not-so-polite reminder seeing as you have now sent me two separate messages to passive aggressively call me a dick. Both of us know I am not an incompetent editor so to try and go down that route is clutching at straws.

There were no edits in retaliation. I take issue with your application of this "that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished " — you made edits to Greg Kiltie, Devante Cole and Liam Polworth whilst the matches were ongoing. They had not finished. You reverted all of mine (including players already substituted; I even stated they had been substituted in the edit summary and you still reverted them) yet you directly went against this in your own edits. To send out a reminder to everyone telling them to not edit until a match has finished and then immediately edit it whilst matches are ongoing here, here and here seems very power-hungry. You have been accused of this by many, many people over the years (in fact, there are twelve separate examples on this page alone!) so perhaps take a moment to look at how you are coming across to your fellow Wikipedians. SBFCEdit (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

See above where I clearly say "or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended". Clear evidence you have not bothered to read my posts, and that you don't actually know how to edit stats updates correctly. So are you saying you did not go through my edit history after I reverted you and saw my edit to Greg Kiltie and reverted it? That was pure retaliation. GiantSnowman 16:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear to see. You stated in the initial message to wait until the match had finished. You then messaged me separately to tell me to "just wait until the match has finished!". You reverted three edits I made to substituted Stevenage players despite me stating in the edit summary they had been substituted. You then immediately edited three substituted players' appearance and goal data whilst the matches were ongoing. You are not immune from being corrected. In this instance, you have been corrected from your own information sent out just five minutes earlier. You know you have been turned inside out here and that is why you have reacted in this manner. SBFCEdit (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In the example given, the timestamp is not fine. Timestamps are meant to be the exact time the edit was made and should be updated using five tildes (~~~~~) for articles that use a DMY date format. Updating the timestamp to a future time would seem to me that the article has been updated too early. As you can see from the examples I gave, another editor is doing something similar. As established contributors, we should be setting an example to new users on how to update stats correctly, otherwise they will think this is an acceptable practice. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: Neither of the two examples you gave were edits made by me so that is not for me to comment on. For me, as long as the appearance and goal data is 100% correct and the timestamp is there or thereabouts I genuinely see no downside in that. It has not caused one bit of confusion from me or fellow contributors in 11+ years of editing. SBFCEdit (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

But it's not! This edit, made some 94 minutes before the time on the timestamp, said that as of 5pm Mr Newton's stats were that. But they weren't. And what if he had scored?! Please just listen to what we are saying. Be patient and wait until the match is over, or the player has at least left the pitch. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If he had scored (and Mr. Newton should have scored on several occasions today!) I would have simply just added the goal. Have done that many, many times over the years. Never once has it been missed. That's no different to me asking you what if the matches involving players in these edits here, here and here who were substituted early ultimately went on to be postponed due to bad weather.

I have no issue following a practice or a set way of editing should there be an obvious reason, that was never the issue here. Your initial information was incorrect and you let your emotions get the better of you in both your application in your edits and then in your messages to me. I will wait until matches finish and you should think about how you are acting / come across to people in future should the same issue arise with someone else. You are involved in so much confrontation on here and it’s largely down to your first interaction with people. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the date/timestamp is supposed to be a date or date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct. The five tilde thing is just an easy way of doing it. But I don't think we should update until the match is over, as there's always a however unlikely possibility of abandonment, nor should we update until our cited source has updated for the appearance we're adding. If we wait until after the game, there's no need to falsify the timestamp. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. It is falsifying the timestamp that I take issue with. What seems to be happening in these cases is the editors are checking the team sheet and proceeding to update the articles, sometimes before the matches have even kicked off. If the stats are updated for a player before kick off and that player becomes injured during the warm up, then they will never actually make that appearance. Moreover, updating stats before the cited source has updated is introducing unsourced content into articles. In the original example given, the cited source is Soccerbase, who do not update player pages until the match is over. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: "“Updating stats before the cited source has updated is introducing unsourced content into articles”"

For me, this is being far too finickity. Occasionally Soccerbase does not update its match data (for instance certain League Two Saturday matches) until the following day. A year or so ago when they migrated all their data it was sometimes up to two days before their information was displayed on their website. If you followed the above practice then most articles would be left with out of date information for days, waiting for Soccerbase (or Soccerway) to update, which would cause its own problems. Either that, or you’d have to source somewhere like BBC Sport for individual match reports until one of the mainstream data providers updated. That is too much to expect in my opinion. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No issues updating the stats prior to Soccerbase/Soccerway being updated - as long as it's backed by a match report (I use BBC when I update) and it's after the match has finished or the player has at least left the pitch. It's that element in bold that is crucial. GiantSnowman 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Unfortunately, that key bit in bold was not what you had initially written. SBFCEdit (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It was an edit summary, it was never going to be war & peace. Get over it - and please stop pinging me. GiantSnowman 20:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: It was not just the several edit summaries that were wrong, your first post in this thread also went against your own practice. SBFCEdit (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it didn't, I clearly said not to update "until a match has finished, or at least until a player's involvement in the match has ended" - and for the second time, please stop pinging me. GiantSnowman 21:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

- So, I think updating even immediately after a match finishes is WP:OR. Can we all agree to calm down, and simply update after matches have finished? Can I ask where we are sourcing the caps, goals etc in the infoboxes? We should really be citing directly to a single source and not source in theory to a database, failing WP:V. In the snooker project, we have WP:LIVESCORES, but maybe this should be strung out to be a bit wider to include further sports? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

LIVESCORES definitely has wider applicability. GiantSnowman 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Since when are we updating stats when a player has been subtituted? I thought it was always, when the match is finished and only at that time. Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Umm, isn't it technically the end of a match for a player when he has been subbed off?? Govvy (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no issues with a player's stats being updated when he leaves the pitch. GiantSnowman 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you use an accurate timestamp for when you update before the end of the match, neither the reader nor other editors can tell whether the stats are up-to-date as of the end of the match, i.e. including the whole of the match, or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The key is not using an accurate timestamp. I'd confuse myself, let alone readers/other editors. SBFCEdit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, are we really promoting updating statistics when there is no source to back this up? Using a match report and a database together seems like a massive case of WP:SYNTH! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Vilenski, that makes no sense, how can you say that correct statistics are SYNTH, it's not conclusion, its straight forward stats. Govvy (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Where are we getting these statistics from? The above is suggesting that we can use a database that is potentially correct up until the date of the match, with a transcript from the game being played, and combine the two to give ourselves a number. That is almost the definition of SYNTH. It's a little irrelvent how correct the statistics are, we shouldn't be jumping the gun to add statistics we can't cite, or it's original research. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel you are looking far to deep, and from my view you're miss-reading what SYNTH is about. I can understand the OR argument, however we provide a stats table which is sourced which covers that point. So in my view your argument becomes void. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel you are missing the point of the conversation here - there are users suggesting we should update these BEFORE the citation does. Then the stats table would not be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a match has finished" - Okay. "that we should NOT update scores/results/player stats etc. until a Soccerbase has updated their page" - Not okay.--EchetusXe 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is arguing over very little, as any good statistics website worth its salt will update close to automatically, and it's not worth splitting hairs over. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Surely a bigger concern is an editor who violates LIVESCORE by editing an article after the player is subbed, but before they game is over, questioning an editor who edited after they entered the game, but before they left the game, of competency to edit! In either case, some event before the whistle blows could cause the match to not count. But really - does anyone really care? Surely reverting any of these edits is WP:POINT! In the unlikely event that the game doesn't count ... I'm sure the damage will be quickly fixed. If it's taken 2 years for anyone to notice ... move on. The whole point of LIVESCORE is so that people aren't updating the scores every few minutes. A cap is secondary and trivial. Perhaps if anyone is really concerned, then can take a wikibreak for an hour or two, and see if there is still a problem with the edit then. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Very nicely summed up! SBFCEdit (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of a storm in a teacup.--EchetusXe 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is why I don't ever edit stat boxes other than to repair vandalism. Too. Much. Drama. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh look, over eager editors updating stats during the game that turn out to be incorrect when the match finishes (JWP scored a further goal!) GiantSnowman 14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Tottenham seasons articles

Afternoon all. Probably of most interest to @Govvy:, but I know there's a few Totts fans out there. Anyway it looks like all the embedded match reports on at least 2008–09 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, 2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, 2010–11 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season (for example) are dead as they were linked to Tottenhams own website and they have decided to bin them off in some fashion or another. It may be that some articles used have been moved to their "Archived News" section, but it's not easy to just search that. Post 2011 appears like we are using BBC articles which look fine. Anyway, just a reminder to all that club websites are notorious for this sort of stuff so be careful when depending on it as references, but particularly as direct links. Any article using the site for a specific historic article might need checking for the new archive URL if one exists. Koncorde (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I do know about some of this and forget, at times. Often loads of people and they know who they are adding premierleague.com ; those often end up dead the following season, I told those editors, yet they still add the premierleague reports. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Real Madrid Task force be deleted?

So, last week this random page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force/layout/assessment) of the task force was discovered when it was vandalized and led to its deletion since it was never set up. See the deletion vote page here. Several users analyzed the task force and realized it is inactive, nor was it ever really active. It has a few pages linked to it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything ever. Several users in the deletion vote for the page deletion were in favour of just scrapping the entire task force since it wasn't active. See the above link to deletion discussion for more info . RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said on the deletion discussion, I support deleting the Task force. No one will even notice it's gone. --SuperJew (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot of task forces are pointless in my opinion, a task force should only be setup and used for areas which have heavy duty workloads, why would you want all these sub task forces where WP:FOOTBALL covers it all anyway. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a deletion. It's not needed and is not even active! GiantSnowman 10:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you set up a deletion nomination for a Task Force? Is it different than for an article? RedPatchBoy (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MfD. Govvy (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, what's this all about? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I nominated Real Madrid for deletion. I think I did it correctly. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So the Task Force was officially deleted today. However, some leftover pages and categories still exist. So I created another deletion log for them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Real Madrid C.F. task force articles. Seems like deleting a task force completely is way more difficult than I thought since deleting the task force page still leaves all the subpages. I think I found them all, but there might still be a few more that will be there somewhere. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be rude to all the admins floating around, but RedPatch put the above MfD into action when he didn't need too, it's clearly a WP:G6 issue. Someone should close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Real Madrid C.F. task force articles and just delete them all under G6. It's cleanup and there is no need to wait it out! That's just being silly now. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Released and re-signed

Ryan Fyffe was released by Inverness Caledonian Thistle before re-signing for them a few months later. Should this count as one spell at the club, or two? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say two spells. "A few months" isn't an insignificant period. – PeeJay 10:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Two spells, like on Michel Vorm, however you might need to watch that, as some people like to combine into one spell, as I just had to restore on Vorm's article. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I do agree, in Fyffe's case. He was released when his contract expired at the end of 2019/20, and re-signed on 11 September, nearly a month before Caley's 2020/21 season started on 6 October. Vorm didn't re-join Spurs until three months into the next season, which is clearly two separate spells. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the two periods although I also accept Struways argument. I think in posterity it will end up a single stay with reference to their being released temporarily due to Covid before re-signing. Koncorde (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Two spells IMHO. GiantSnowman 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Microwave Anarchist, Govvy, Struway2, Nehme1499 - I just added a stats table to Fyffe's article. Do you all agree with how I organized? Also, if anyone could figure out how many league appearances he made for Fort William last season that would be incredible. Thanks! Rupert1904 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking I'm ok with the way the stats table is laid out. One note: use em dashes (—) in place of unknown stats, not zeros. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No, don't use emdashes in place of unknown stats, leave unknowns blank. Dashes are for inapplicable cells: e.g. League Cup at levels or in countries without one, competitions in which the club didn't compete while the player was there, or for which the player was ineligible. The cited source says 2 Scottish Cup apps for Fort William, the table says 3: one of them must be wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I must have been tired when I wrote that. I agree with what you said, blanks for unknown stats, em dashes for inapplicable stats. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Struway2: - he definitely played in both games against Albion Rovers, as Soccerway says. For him to have made three cup appearances, he would have to have played in the first round against Vale of Leithin, but I am struggling to find line-ups for that game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: He did: https://twitter.com/FortWilliamFC/status/1175407394416922629 cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Scottish Cup in Career statistics

This weekend sees the semi-finals of the 2019–20 Scottish Cup. Since it's last season's competition but it's taking place during this season how should appearances in these matches be recorded in Career statistics tables? It's easy enough for players who were with their current clubs last season, but what about players who transferred to one of these clubs for this season?

Using Craig Gordon as an example who has gone from Celtic to Hearts do we: 1. Create a row in the table for the 2019–20 Hearts season and record the appearance there? or 2. Record it in the 2020–21 Hearts season row, with a note explaining the appearance was in the 2019–20 competition? A Well Fan (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd put it in season 2020–21 with a note. We do that for 'other' appearances and appearances in both Champions League/Europa League in the season so it would just be the same as that really. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Since it's part of the 2019-20 season of the Scottish Cup, I think it should be listed in a row for the 2019-20 season with a note explaining the discrepancy. Not sure what the reference to the Champions League/Europa League has to do with anything. – PeeJay 06:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. We log the stats by season, not date. GiantSnowman 08:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, it should be in 2019–20. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree too, seems a no-brainer to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, agree. Kante4 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

An issue though - this. Players who signed for the club at the start of the 2020-21 season, technically playing in the 2019-20 competition... thoughts? GiantSnowman 08:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is good the way it is. Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's displaying the 2019–20 stats in the 2020–21 season (against the consensus here) with a footnote explaining the discrepancy. And for those players, what happens when the 2020–21 season starts? GiantSnowman 13:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This was why I asked the question at the beginning, because using Alex Gogic as an example, he didn't play for Hibernian during 2019–20, it's just that one match yesterday. I also think that note on his page needs to be better written if that's what's going to be used. A Well Fan (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be in the 2019–20 section if the player has remained at the same club. But for new players like Gogic or Diego Laxalt, it should go in 2020–21 season line with a note. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That discrepancy will cause confusion, and sources are adding them to 2020-21 stats, so that is what I will do. GiantSnowman 21:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

How to display 3–0 default wins in league table?

Yesterday, Safa SC beat Tadamon Sour SC 2–0. However, as Tadamon Sour had fielded six substitutes (one more than the limit of five), the match was turned into a 3–0 win to Safa. How should this be indicated in the 2020–21 Lebanese Premier League table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As a 3-0 win for Safa. – PeeJay 07:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In the table itself it should obviously be recorded as a 3-0 win, because that was the official result. The unusual circumstances can be indicated in a footnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to anything picture topic...

So this Kyle Bartley profile pic may just be the finest one I have ever seen on wikipedia. I am not sure if it's the fact he's playing the human bagpipe, or the way his nose is being ever so gently tweaked, or the fact it has been up there for almost 11 years and is one of the default suggested images on google. Well played Celtic fans, well played. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is amazing. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL ::@Koncorde:! How about this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paolo_Castellini&diff=prev&oldid=462993352)? --Quite A Character (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear me. We do need to have some discernment applied. Koncorde (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I like how some of these terrible photos are still used on other language wikis.... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I like that Bartley's photo is used also on List of Scottish football transfers summer 2011. --SuperJew (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure all the players with terrible photos must have seen them being used on their articles - you would think they would want to find a way to get a better photo on there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that they probably assume that only some elite editors have the "power" to change the players' pictures. It would be nice if they knew that all they had to do is upload a picture taken by them. 14:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ESA Linas-Montlhery picture

Hello. Could someone possibly add the club logo to this Wikipedia article? I do not know how to do it and make it under fair use. Thank you to the person that takes action on this. Have a great day. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie  Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(I don't know how to ping your weird username): Thank you so much! Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Ahahahah no need. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Flags in managerial statistics tables

BosnianBeast60 (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds flags to managerial statistics tables like in this edit. Up to now, I've reverted these edits with a reference to MOS:FLAGICON and tried to talk to the editor but they don't seem to communicate. If consensus is that managerial statistics tables should not contain statistics tables, then how should I further proceed? --Jaellee (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the info about where the clubs are based to be useful, but we shouldn't do it with just a flag. Although knowledge of flags is second nature to some of us, guidelines say they should be accompanied by at least a tricode, but in this case I don't see the harm in including the entire name of the country. – PeeJay 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem as long as the country name/code is also included, but I would also suggest that a better header for the column would be "Country" rather than "Nat" (presumably short for nationality) as clubs don't really have "nationalities"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose "Nat" could be short for "nation" too. – PeeJay 11:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

True, I guess. But "nation" seems to me to be an unnecessarily highfalutin word in this context....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems the flag icon is representing the club, however I feel it shouldn't be a flagicon, I feel that element should be a written name. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also if you are using the flagicon, that really should be in front of the club name, not after it. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the flags in this context as long as the country name is specifically added next to it. It is currently problematic. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to add the country of a club as a written name, I have no problem with that. But I have the impression that these flags are just added for decoration which is against MOS:FLAGICON. It also says that flags have to be accompanied with country names (which was not done in these edits). --Jaellee (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Jaellee. I reverted a few myself the last weeks. It brings nothing to the table for me. Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It really annoys me that we have this regulation about flags not being used for decoration, since I think people often get the wrong end of the stick with it. The way I read it, flags shouldn't be used *just* for decoration. We used to have a trend of people adding a flag and the team name at the top of every squad list in match articles when the flag was already included as part of the footballbox above, which was clearly a case of adding flags just for a splash of colour. But while flags do indeed add a bit of colour to an otherwise fairly dreary wall of black and white, in many cases they can convey information at a glance. I have sympathy for people who are partially sighted or colour blind and therefore don't have the luxury of being able to identify flags instantaneously the way most people can (assuming they recognise the flag), but a flag for each player in a squad list is a great way of telling the nationality make-up of a squad (e.g. are they all from the same nation as the club, is it a cosmopolitan selection, etc.) without needing to add extra text that would distract from the most important info, i.e. the players' names – some country names, especially if we insist on writing them out in full (e.g. Democratric Republic of the Congo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), are longer than the names of the players they're attached to! Therefore, I believe that it shouldn't always be necessary to add text next to a flag – the flag should be a sufficient identifier for itself, that's what they're for – but unfortunately these are the regulations we have. – PeeJay 13:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User is adding them (back), do we have a consensus for them to be included or excluded? Kante4 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Article split? Is it needed?

Ok , i saw someone created Template:Club Stats of Kaká, but did it even needed? After fork out the content , the Kaka article size is 133,108 bytes for reference . Matthew hk (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No because they're just calling that template in the article rather than having the stats in the article. Which doesn't change the article size anyway, so no idea why it's been done. A template for use once is pointless. Maybe ShadowBallX2 can explain, as they created the template? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Tbh at the time, I thought it would be a good idea. I have pretty much given up editing here, and have been editing on the Simple English Wikipedia for the past month. If you want to remove the template and just add it back in normally, im fine with it. Sorry for any confusion or issues, and have a great day. ShadowBallX2 (My Talk Page) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

My point being that it's not an article split, as the text is still in the article. Would only be a split if the text was removed from Kaká and used on a different page. So if splitting was the reason, this template hasn't solved that. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we should not have such templates - partly because it's pointless as would only ever appear in one article, and partly because such templates don't tend to be watched to the same extent as articles and so are magnets for vandals. WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 22:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

TfD started here- please feel free to leave your opinions there. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:FA Cup Final players

Thoughts on Category:FA Cup Final players? I think it's OVERCAT personally. GiantSnowman 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @No Great Shaker:, the creator of the category -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris, thank you for the ping.

GiantSnowman, my thinking was that there are categories for players in World/European Cup finals so this is in the same vein as those. Also, we have a category for FA Cup final referees so why not one for the players too? The FA Cup final doesn't have the same "aura" these days that it had in the past when it was arguably the #1 sporting event of the year in England. Even so, it has always been a real honour for any player to take part in the match. Looking at it another way, the category would be useful to readers who are interested in the match as it provides an easy way for them to check if a particular player ever took part – lots of famous players did not: George Best, for example.

I will of course accept consensus if most people think it is an over-categorisation but I would ask that you first consider the readers because categories like this provide value to them. One of the main purposes of a category is to help to round out the information in an article and, for a footballer, the fact that the guy has played in an FA Cup final is definitely a valid and necessary piece of information. In an ideal world, of course, all articles would mention in the narrative that he played in a cup final, but they don't. Happy to answer any questions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this is OVERCAT but I can also see why someone would see it as useful. The World Cup and European Cup are international rather than national competitions and they are held every four years, and not every year. If an article doesn't mention it in the text, it shouldn't be in the category. It needs to be sourced (and relevant) that they were in the final at the very least. I don't think this would be that useful to a reader as it is such a wide year range for the category. Woody (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also agree probably over cat, I do like seeing a Baronet and Lord in that list know! Govvy (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also a Brigadier-General and a Major-General....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've reached Blackburn now, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool picture of the Major-General, he is buried in the same place as some of my family. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It's OVERCAT and really not needed. Kante4 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting though. I mean really, who here can picture This guy playing in a FA Cup final? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this meet WP:CATDEF? I'm not so sure. Would an equivalent of Category:UEFA Champions League winning players be better? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Defending champions?

Can anyone provide a compelling reason why the infobox for a football competition season needs an entry for the competition's defending champions? The team that won the tournament the year before is not relevant enough to this season's competition to be worth putting in the infobox, surely? – PeeJay 15:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty relevant information if you ask me. It adds context to the season, and I don't see any reason not to include it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant information. GiantSnowman 16:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I get well over 100,000 Gnews results for "defending champions" "Premier League", which suggests it's something the the media talk about a lot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant enough for the infobox of an article? It may be just about relevant while the season is ongoing, but once the season is over, what difference does it make who won the one before? If people want to find out who the winner of the previous season's competition was, they should look at the previous season's article, no? – PeeJay 18:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Knowing how the defending champions have done this season seems reasonably interesting. And again, I don't see the harm in keeping it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that should go in the lead, sure, but not the infobox. – PeeJay 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"In creation" template

Hi folks. Does it occur commonly that someone

• creates a "half-arsed" page (diff),
• places an "in creation" template on it (diff),
• overwrites other editors changes (Edit history at the page),
• and refers to the template ([3]) which seems to imply they would others to hold off from editing the page even though it's been live for more than 30 minutes?

This looks very odd to me. Every article I have created so far was pretty much the finished article when I created it. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Some editors create basic stubs and then expand them quickly, others create full blown articles from the off. Everyone is different. However, they should not be overwriting constructive changes from other editors, that is clear OWNership issues. GiantSnowman 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems common courtesy to me that if the user put an "in creation" template on the page, then you don't edit it, at least for the first few days. --SuperJew (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And yes, different users have different creation processes. --SuperJew (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: The player made his debut today and there will be a bunch of people looking him up on Wikipedia. Blocking others from editing after publishing the page in such a sorry state is a disservice to our readers. Waiting for "days" is unworkable. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to remind you WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. --SuperJew (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Publishing a sloppy one-liner looks very much like rushing to create an article to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's a different creation process. And honestly I can also understand where it's coming from - I've had a few cases where I made major changes/expansion to an article and then when I went to post, I got an "edit conflict" message. In the better cases, I managed to salvage my edit and then only had to work with revisions to merge my edit with the edits which conflicted, while in the worse cases the internet browser page didn't go back properly and I lost all the work that I had done. --SuperJew (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In use should be taken off if not edited in a few hours, rather than a few days. And if users want to create articles in multiple edits, they should use draftspace and then move it to article space once ready. Creating a one line article and putting an in use on it to stop others from trying to contribute is not helpful for this collaborative project. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, if it's only just creation, it's under construction- which is a different template which allows for collaborative editing. Edit conflicts aren't the worst thing in the world, and this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Joseph: if you are looking to create the bulk of an article, then draftspace usage is more productive than an "in creation" notice. That way, if someone does have something productive to add there is less risk of edit conflicts and if someone beats you to creation of the article, then just slip in the relevant information. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack Taylor infobox

What's going on here? Looks fine on mobile but out of alignment on desktop. OGLV (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the fact that the infobox is wider than normal? It's like that because one of his team names (Hampton & Richmond Borough) is really long. The reason why it looks "normal" on mobile, is because the infobox always extends to fit the screen for all players with no text beside it on mobile, whereas on desktop it's on the right side with text on the left. Due to the longer team name, the infobox gets stretched a bit on desktop. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Groupama Aréna move?

Hello. I am just confused why the official name of this stadium is said to be Groupama Aréna when the name of the article is just Groupama Arena. Should we move this page to make it have an accent (like the official name of the stadium suggests?) And if not, why is the article called Arena without an accent on the e? Thanks and best regards to whoever reads this, Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that we do not use sponsored names on stadium articles for soccer, so I think it should be moved back to Ferencváros Stadion. GiantSnowman 09:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ENFA

Is there anyone around who has access to the ENFA (or any other possible source) and would be willing to fill in the Southend United part of Jimmy Nelson's stats table if possible? Kosack (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. The "other" apps are in the Third Division South Cup, left it for you to sort out where to put the words for that. Your table has 4 FA Cup apps for Cardiff in 1929/30 while ENFA has none, don't know which is right. And the infobox has 9 Southend goals, which I'm fairly sure is a typo for 0. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The 4 Cup matches in 1929-30 must be wrong - Cardiff didn't even play 4 FA Cup matches that season....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Struway, the FA Cup apps were my mistake, the 4 was meant for the Welsh Cup. I suspected the 9 in the infobox was wrong as it also had 7 for Cardiff and 21 for Newcastle before I got there, no idea where they came from. Kosack (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Karnataka Women's League

I was wondering if this article really passes WP:GNG, I am finding the language barrier for sources rather annoying towards notability. I definitely feel 2019–20 Karnataka Women's League season should be delete know. Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Season definitely doesn't, not convinced the league does either, although hard to tell (as it may have non-English sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Have added the season page to the AfD list for now. Govvy (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the men's equivalent (2019–20 Bangalore Super Division) needs season articles either. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few of those going back to 2011–12, I don't know how to bulk AfD articles. Govvy (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Just nominate separately, bundling can be controversial. GiantSnowman 14:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Is bundling all the Bangalore Super Division season articles into 1 AFD is fine, as long as it's a separate AFD to the Karnataka Women's League? There's 10 Bangalore Super Division season articles, none of which appear notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely need to be a separate AFD to the current one, because discussion has already begun. If you believe that all 10 articles are the same and would have the same outcome you can bundle together, but if there is a possibility that some might be notable/different you risk all 10 being procedurally kept by doing so. GiantSnowman 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually would like some clarification on this. Beyond passing GNG, what is the typical cutoff for league season articles? I know they typically go a little bit past FPL (e.g. Regionalliga articles), but I wasn't sure if there was a rule of thumb that was typical here. Especially for non-English leagues, where sources in English can be hard to come by. Jay eyem (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I think the conventional cutoff is whether or not the clubs in the league participate in the major domestic cup competition (FA Cup, Coppa Italia, etc.) Obviously this cutoff isn't rigid (for example, we have Serie D seasons), but its a general guideline. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing Elo from infobox template

Now that the official world rankings are simply an adjusted Elo as of 2018, can we remove the Elo sections of Template:Infobox national football team? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Italicised nicknames

Yogabrata has been making a substantial number of edits to club articles. Some of the additions are questionable, linking nations, changing existing links etc. One of the main changes is also the addition of italics to club nicknames in infoboxes. I've seen a few reverts of these so was wondering what the opinion is on this? Are italics needed for nicknames in the infobox? Kosack (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No the italics are not required, nor are they in the template MOS. I was watching Yogabrata for a few days, took a look at a few other articles he hadn't changed and could see lots of teams already had random italics etc. So I left it. Saw Struway2 had reverted one earlier which made me think perhaps I wasn't going insane.

In the end, not too worried if stuff is in italics. However if you have concerns over other edits, can you supply the diffs so we can look at them. Ta. Koncorde (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The only other changes generally being made are the linking of countries, which I dropped them a note about mentioning WP:OVERLINK, and some minor rewording in places which was a little informal (changing top tier to top flight, etc). Although, I also spotted this addition which doesn't seem to be based on anything in the article I can see. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: that last one, while I don't have any hard and fast evidence, I would say it is highly unlikely that a team in the sixth tier of English football is professional (semi-professional probably yes, but that's not what the user wrote) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree these edits are overall non-constructive. GiantSnowman 09:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple, but haven't taken it up with the editor. Doesn't seem to come under anything MOS:ITALIC says should be italicised, nor is it suggested in the infobox documentation. If we did require italics for that field, the infobox code could be changed to do it automatically, but I wouldn't support such a change. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably no point raising it with them when this is their response. GiantSnowman 09:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you mass rollback GS? Koncorde (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames don't need italics, we generally use it for foreign language words and books/newspapers. And don't need to link countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What about italics for specific terminology, such as a derby name? For example, should Beirut derby be italicized in prose? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Check out MOS:IT. Specific terminology isn't italicised unless it falls into one of the categories, so short anser is no, "Beirut derby" shouldn't be italicised. – Elisson • T • C • 15:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

He isn't slowing down guys? Koncorde (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Yogabrata isn't making any attempt to collaborate with others on wikipedia, it seems he is much more of a disruptive editor and a hinderance. Hasn't listened to other and clearly erasing his talk-page every time raises yet another red-flag. Far as I see he should be blocked from editing. @Black Kite: You're impartial here, what do you think? Govvy (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have mentioned this thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor that's WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Badge, Coventry City

I have raised this issue on the talk page of the above team. Could someone take a look and see if they can remedy? Coventry City F.C. Coventryy (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been fixed now, to save anyone checking. Crowsus (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep sorry, forgot to confirm here. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Mexico v Spain 2010

Is anyone able to help with a small mystery? Mexico played Spain in a 2010 friendly; this has been marked as a 'Non FIFA' match by National Football Teams here, (e.g it was Soriano's only match that year, in fact his debut too here) but I can't see why. There is a ref for it at eswiki for the Mexico team and for the Mexican bicentenary events (which was the reason for the fixture) but it's the FIFA site which is a dead link, and annoyingly the archive link from the time also bounces back to that dead link automatically so I can't check if it mentioned anything. I have found a few match reports but nothing mentions any unofficial status. It doesn't hugely matter but just because of the players involved, several in the 100 club including Sergio Ramos who might break the record, so it should be noted on the lists if the match isn't counted by everyone. By contrast, tonight i added a note for a few Spain players for a 2013 match v Equatorial Guinea that was declared unofficial because of a referee registration error, but it's still counting towards player totals as the Spanish federation counts it. But the difference is, that match status was reported in the press and its now on BDFutbol with a note to that effect. But I could find nothing for the Mexico match (NFT fully counts the Eq Guinea match in its stats, e.g it was Juanfran's only goal, great consistency). If anyone has any info on what might have made it non-FIFA in some way, please give me a shout and I'll get it noted as appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I strongly suspect the issue is the amount of subs used: 8 by Spain, 7 by Mexico. The FIFA limit set at 6 in 2004 seems to still be in effect. My question then is, what happens when the rule is broken? I vaguely remember a 'too many subs' situation a few years ago? Maybe? Crowsus (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have found this, which effectively states that the match was not an A international for the reasoning you just explained regarding the subs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, FIFA's (now defunct) fixture list on their website isn't reliable (they often messed up results, dates, duplicated fixtures, forgot to include others). NFT is very "wonky" when distinguishing between official and not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus: in 2013, Spain used seven subs against South Africa and FIFA apparently allowed it to be an A international.[4] Hack (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to check, at least that's some explanation. I'm not sure that obscure blog will be sufficient evidence for adding notes to the fixtures and the caps lists for the players involved though, unless the site holds some standing I'm not aware of? Crowsus (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

NFT is a great resource, but a bit inconsistent with certain things. I think that match should count as a valid friendly for stats purposes, I don't recall FIFA outright disqualifying the match from records.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks folks for your contributions. Given that the 'issue' is so small (who really cares how many subs? I'm not sure even fifa does. From what i have read, the Spanish clubs were disgusted at the scheduling and so they tried to limit the playing time as much as possible without disrespecting Mexico or the 100,000+ crowd.) I intend to just leave it 'as is', since adding notes makes it look like I'm pushing the issue but as I've said I'm really not bothered, was just curious to know why that website counted it oddly. The 2013 EQG match was also a very minor admin issue but it seems to have been 'officially' annulled to some extent as reported in the media so i think it's correct to highlight it, but I don't think it would benefit anyone to try and argue the caps shouldn't count or whatever. Interesting that the South Africa match got coverage over the use of the subs but Mexico doesn't seem to have been reported as such, other than in this very minor way at NFT and the rankings blog page. Crowsus (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:French-Polish footballers has been nominated for merging to Category:French footballers

Category:French-Polish footballers has been nominated for merging to Category:French footballers. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Aldwyn McGill notability

What does the community think about this person? I was a bit reluctant to nominate the article right away, but I have strong doubts. He definitely fails NFOOTY and probably violates WP:SELFPUB or something similar, seeing as much of information about him comes from a website where he is a "publisher and chief editor." --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely worth putting to AfD I would say. If no sources independent from the subject exist, then that has to be a GNG concern at least Spiderone 10:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicolas Nath

Can anyone see if Nicolas Nath has ever played a game of professional football? I can't seem to find him in any of the usual database sites. Spiderone 19:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This indicates that he appeared as a substitute for SC Goa in the I-League in March 2007. That's all I can find. This might also help for GNG but I don't have a subscription. GiantSnowman 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India match report is for the predecessor National Football League, which wasn't fully pro: the first I-League season was 2007–08, which ran from November 2007. If, as Mr Nath's article says, he left at the end of that season, he didn't play in the I-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

When was he at Inter? Surely there is something about that? Inter aren't exactly a small club. It may be that he was on the books for the reserves and likes to say that he was in the first team. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Swedish new articles just mention that he was part of the Inter youth squad, and has trained with the senior squad on occasion. He never played a game of professional football in Sweden, and doesn't seem to have done so in Italy either. He does seem to have gotten some attention that may be enough for GNG anyway, especially considering he's also been an Expedition Robinson contestant. – Elisson • T • C • 12:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the page pages WP:GNG at this point, should probably be deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is now up for discussion here Spiderone 11:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Current Season" results template

What is the agreed upon census for which template to use for results? Some use this one 2020–21 Peterborough United F.C. season#Matches and some use this one, 2020–21 Birmingham City F.C. season#Match results Coventryy (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133#2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season formatting. Then draw your own conclusions... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Islam Slimani international goals

Hi friends, we're having an issue about the number of international goals Islam Slimani has scored. National-Football-Teams lists him with 30 goals (see here https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/47712/Islam_Slimani.html) which is correct but a certain user seems to think it's 29 because "all the players were local" in a friendly match against Mauritania in 2013. However, the match is considered a full international match by FIFA, it was listed on the FIFA.com website many years ago before they changed their site (would someone be able to find an archive?). DZFoot, the main reference for Algerian football online, also listed him with 30 goals as recently as today (see here: http://www.dzfoot.com/2020/11/14/en-bounedjah-integre-le-top-10-des-meilleurs-buteurs-192108.php) and specifically mentioned that that match against Mauritania was an official FIFA match in a previous article (see here: http://www.dzfoot.com/2019/07/02/historique-slimani-deuxieme-meilleur-buteur-des-verts-156583.php). Any help on the issue would be appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And just to add, the Algerian Press Service (official Algerian government press agency) posted this today with Slimani listed with 30 goals http://www.aps.dz/sport/112762-foot-classement-historique-des-buteurs-bounedjah-integre-le-top-10 TonyStarks (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And said user has now reverted me 3 times in 24 hours, breaking WP:3RR TonyStarks (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's of any use, RSSSF give Slimani 29 goals, stating: "the match against Mauritania (1-0, 25-5-13 in Blida, in which Slimani scored) was not a full A international and is therefore not included here". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To give a slightly less one-sided perspective, the other user, Faycal.09 is using these sources to demonstrate it wasn't a full international. However, FIFA state (section 7 on page 8) that the 'A' team is the senior national team and the archived version of the FIFA site list it like other senior matches,[5] so it would appear it should count.

Also, having a team of only domestic-based players doesn't necessarily make it a non-senior match – aren't African Nations Championship counted as full internationals despite national teams only playing domestic-based players? Number 57 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

PS, three reverts in 24 hours is not a WP:3RR breach. A breach is more than three reverts. Number 57 23:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that FIFA link showing the results! And for the context on the 3RR rule. In any case, I came here when it was clear that we were not going to find a consensus. TonyStarks (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, here's a Twitter thread from the data admin of TransferMarkt (I know not always the best source) but he reached out to the coach of the Algeria team that played in the game vs Mauritania and confirmed that it was a full international friendly by FIFA standards: https://twitter.com/JoschaBerger/status/1171759271161319426 TonyStarks (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing regarding the FIFA website: it was rife of errors, and that website shouldn't be used as a definitive list of full-FIFA matches. For what I remember, FIFA asked some amateur statisticians to search and assess the official status of the matches on their own. Some official matches were not included, other matches were non-FIFA, and others had incorrect dates and/or scores. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In 2013, Algeria A' (local team) played against Mauritania to prepare the 2014 African Nations Championship qualification. Only 29 goals (with A team) are counted, we can see in other links here : (France Football), (Afrik Foot). Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that your references for Algerian football are France Football (which only mentions Slimani in the article in passing), and Afrik-Foot, and the fact you disregard The subject matter experts who focus entirely on Algerian football (DZfoot, Algerian Press Service) not to mention N-F-T.com says it all really. TonyStarks (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

France football is a credible site and it clearly mentions the number of goals that Slimani has scored, that's our subject, isn't it? I gives you too link of the more credible algerian site (Le Buteur "El Heddaf"). regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For me, if RSSSF have the match listed with a description of it not being a full 'A' international, that is the source that I would trust therefore list Slimani at 29 goals. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Ballon d'Or Dream Team nominations

Hi all, @Mazewaxie: and I have had a difference of opinions over whether or not nominations for the 2020 Ballon d'or dream team should be included on player articles. What are others thoughts on the matter? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. In my opinion it should be addded because is a honour to be chosen as a nomination for an award of this caliber. REDMAN 2019 says that it shouldn't be mentioned because it's only a nomination, and not an award. Using that logic, we should also remove Ballon d'Or runner-ups, third places and so on from every article. That doesn't make sense in my opinion. Being nominated for a France Football all-time team it's still notable, since only 110 players in the history of the game were chosen, leaving out big names like Dani Alves, Paul Scholes and Frank Lampard for example. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is just a nomination, so they should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't include either. Just the eventual final 11 then. -Koppapa (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. – PeeJay 00:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I might include this later, if the nomination ends up being well covered/notable. But for now, too soon. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we remove Ballon d'or runner-ups and third place as well? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd think no, it's a major award. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while we might not list being nominated as an honour, this doesn't and shouldn't mean it is not mentioned in their career summmary. It is almost certainly worth noting that "at the end of 2020 X was nominated, but was ultimately unsuccessful" where there are reliable sources to say so. If there is voting and placings in such dream teams then again, mentioning "x finished runner up in nominations behind y for the OMG BESTPLAYEREVER team of the season /year /decade /century etc". Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine in the prose. Kante4 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

George Boyd (footballer)

I have noticed from an edit made by someone else that the Style of Play section is too long compared to other articles of more famous footballers. I have started a discussion on it's talk page to see what should stay and what should be removed or relocated. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over national team entities

Hi. For the first time in a long while I am close to breaching WP:3RR. An IP editors is edit-warring for a change to combine Mladen Krstajić's appearances for different national teams – FR Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Serbia – into one. That change can't be right, can it? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not. I have reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 16:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Robby.is.on (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically FR Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro could (and probably should) be combined into one since those were the same country, they just renamed the country - since FR Yugoslavia (S&M only) is not the same thing as SFR Yugoslavia (the original Yugoslavia). It's similar to how Macedonia was renamed to North Macedonia. It was just a name change and we don't split those for the Macedonians. Serbia itself however is different since that resulted from a split and is a different nation from FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro are absolutely the same team. There should be 2 lines for Krstajić.--BlameRuiner (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to make it two rows. It seems the most correct way (and perhaps the IP will view it as an acceptable compromise) RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So many other players have their FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro and Serbia stats combined into one, for example Ivica Dragutinović and Nemanja Vidić RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, RSSSF combines all FR Yugoslavia/Serbia & Montenegro/Serbia stats into one. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be considered one. I believe FIFA considers the Serbia NT the sole successor to the Serbia & Montenegro NT, same way S&M is the sole successor for FR Yugoslavia.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

File:FC_Basel.png

It says this is in the public domain, but I've never seen any other modern football crests in the public domain and it's used in a lot of pages. Are we sure it's all okay, I have my suspicions. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Its probably because it's only made up of simple geometric shapes. It's the same (to a lesser extent) to File:Juventus FC 2017 icon (black).svg. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be very doubtful as to whether the Basel crest fails WP:TOO, which is reserved for very simple shapes and typefaces. I suspect (unless there's a copyright issue I'm not aware of) that it should be a non-free image. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it has way to many colours and shapes to be considered "simple shapes and typefaces". If converted to non-free, it'll need a non-free rationale for every single season article if it's needed on all of them (which I doubt it is). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I certainly can't see why it would be tagged public domain, I also thought it should be non-free rationale, but then this isn't my field. I can only point out what I see as a potential problem. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - no way is that crest simplistic enough to be covered by WP:TOO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on how many appearances is enough to supersede GNG

Recently I have been going through the squads of Albirex Niigata Singapore FC and filling in any players who have played in the S.League during their time with the club. A few of these players only managed one or two appearances, and were all deleted at AfDs (1 2 3). This is fair enough - they pass WP:NFOOTY, but not WP:GNG. However, how far does this stretch? What is the minimum number of appearances a "non-notable" player has to make to not have their page removed?

Before telling me that any player who fails GNG should have their page removed, remember that there are hundreds of articles out there for players who do not meet GNG. For example, there are the "presumed notable" players - mostly English second/third tier players from the early 20th century, who seem to go unquestioned. As well as this, there are multiple international footballers from smaller nations, particularly those in the Caribbean and South Pacific, who could have racked up over 50 international appearances while barely getting any web hits.

I would like to get a consensus from the community on a number of appearances a player has to make before they no longer "scrape" WP:NFOOTY, and can stand on their own merit without having to pass GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Every article must meet WP:GNG. There is no "magic number." That doesn't mean you should start PROD-ing articles which don't pass WP:GNG on their face, especially for historical players, since WP:NFOOTY gives a presumption that a player will be notable.. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with SF, there's no magic number, each case is different - you can have players with 0 apps who meet GNG, and players with 5 who don't. But the more appearances made, the more likely there will be sources and GNG therefore met. GiantSnowman 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So if I stumbled upon an article on a player who made 50 appearances in what we recognise as a fully pro league but who couldn't be proven to meet GNG (entirely possible I would say for, say, a player in the Third Division North in the 1930s) and sent it to AfD, people would support its deletion even though he made 50 appearances.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, of course not, because it is highly likely that a player that active in the 1930s would have majority/only offline sourcing and would also meet GNG. GiantSnowman 11:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you started your AfD with "He played for Coventry, and I've done a full archive search of the Coventry newspaper here and all national newspapers here and a few magazines from the time here and we can verify he played but there's really nothing on him that would allow us to write a WP:GNG-qualifying article," I would probably double-check and vote delete there. Let's assume the article isn't good but you just write "fails WP:GNG," I'm doing a before search everywhere I can to get him over the line. That's the presumption in effect. It is context-specific, especially in football, which is international - it's a lot easier in say baseball or Aussie rules if a player doesn't make the majors/top flight. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's fair enough, but I strongly disagree with presumed notability. We surely cannot assume that, for example, an English Third Division player who played one game at the beginning of the 20th century would have been notable in his time.

I also disagree with more appearances making it more likely there will be sources. A player like Himid Mao would fail GNG, but he has made 30+ appearances in the professional Egyptian League, as well as amassing 50 caps. If I took his article to an AfD, what would stop it from being deleted? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, This would, and this, and certainly this, and perhaps this or this as well, or this. And then there's this and presumably this, and that or that might help, and I don't know if this is a reliable source. There have to be better examples of non-notable players meeting NFOOTY than this one surely? Fram (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Half of these aren't proven reputable sources, and the rest are either talking about his transfers, injuries or call ups. The last one is a Wordpress article. This, this and this would be good enough for GNG if they are proven, reliable sources. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So essentially we are saying that a player who has only made a handful of appearances in the 2010s gets deleted because we can prove he doesn't meet GNG, but a player who made a handful of appearances in the 1910s essentially gets a free pass to stay here, potentially forever, because it is assumed that there are probably sources but they can't be accessed? Seems a bit like double standards........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not double standards, it reflects the media at the time - in the same way we would give more leeway to a e.g. Nepalese player with 1 FPL appearance than to an English player with 1 FPL appearance. WP:BIAS applies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is, though, that if we are going to be realistic a player who only ever made 5 appearances for Rochdale in 2009 almost certainly won't meet GNG, and if his article was brought to AfD there's a good chance it would be deleted, but if a player who only ever made 5 appearances for Rochdale in 1929 was brought to AfD people would probably say it should be kept on the grounds that "pre-internet sources probably exist". Why do we think sources would exist for the 1929 player when we can prove that sources don't exist for an equivalent player in 2009? Did the papers in the pre-internet era write more about bit-part players than online news sources do now (genuine question - maybe they did......)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is leading into the realms of notability between the non-digital age media and digital-age media. It's important to remember how sources were used before the internet. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay let’s take it back to the original point. Shun Inaba has 27 S.League appearances, as well as 9 cup appearances against other S.League sides. There are next to no hits when you search his name. He fails GNG but easily passes WP:NFOOTY. Are we keeping the article or deleting it? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If you search Inaba's Japanese name (稲葉 旬) you get quite a few hits, but hard to tell how many are good news sources as I don't speak Japanese. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look through the Google results for his Japanese name, but to be honest a lot of those are passing mentions or profiles. I'd still say he fails GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, having looked at the Tanzania national team after raising the case of Himid Mao, not only would captain John Bocco (67 caps), but also Erasto Nyoni with NINETY full international caps, would fail GNG. Are we going to delete these articles too? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nyoni? Notable, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]... Fram (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For Singapore and this player you can have sources from Japanese, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay and google would not be able to read all of those. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So the players from Singapore would not be eligible for articles unless those sources are provided? Because the three players listed above that have been deleted could have thousands of pages of results on a Malay search engine. And with regards to the Tanzanian players? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

David, repspectfully, you are clearly not doing proper searches for all these players if you are coming back with a determination that GNG is not met that quickly. Generally I politely suggest you spend more time fewer writing well-written/sourced articles, rather than churning out questionable one-line stubs. GiantSnowman 12:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through all 9 pages of articles about Erasto Nyoni, as well as a few under the news tab. I found a handful of goal.com articles, including this one about him buying a kid a bike, a BBC article titled "Tanzania club suspends 'corrupt' players", of which he is one of the players, and an article mentioning that he is injured. Anything else was either not reputable, or just mentioning him in passing. I still don't think this is really enough to meet GNG.

And sure, I will stop churning out questionable stubs. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Those articles on politicians are clearly notable. Your stubs are not, hence why so many have been deleted recently. GiantSnowman 13:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so create substantial articles about them then, rather than the minimal, one-source stubs that you have created. You're having a go at me for something that you also do. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not. GiantSnowman 13:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You told me to spend more time writing "well-written/sourced articles", implying that I don't, though you create more basic stubs than I do. Then you felt the need to tell me that so many of my articles "have been deleted recently". If we have a look at the stats, 47 of my articles have been deleted, most of which have been restored. 234 of your articles have been deleted. This represents 0.016% of my articles, and 0.032% of yours. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of the ones deleted are actually my sandboxes that I moved into mainspace and deleted myself, or articles that have since been re-created. Anyway this is distracting and we've both made our points, let's move on. GiantSnowman 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You're still not looking closely enough, then. Erasto Nyoni is clearly notable through my own WP:BEFORE search, which doesn't use Google, as are the other Tanzanian players you've mentioned. Do not rely on Google results to determine notability alone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said above. NFOOTBALL creates a presumption of notability for footballers who played at least once in a fully-pro league, but if after editors have had sufficient time to search for sources indicating the GNG has not been met, that presumption isn't valid. It has been shown over and over that players who make a handful of appearances (particularly in a league that is not the top league in a particular country) over an entire career rarely ever have SIGCOV to pass the GNG. I think we have tended to give a pass to footballers with ongoing careers in fully-pro leagues (as opposed to ones that have dropped down to semi-pro or amateur leagues). It's also important to consider the availability on online sources (e.g., in places where internet coverage is sparse or for players from the pre-internet era), but I believe that footballers who only have a handful of appearances in lower-level leagues are unlikely to satisfy GNG through offline sources (nobody has found evidence that demonstrates such players had SIGCOV in offline print sources). Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband

Can someone help me find sources for Phil Younghusband's goals against Timor-Leste and Brunei in November 2006? Please continue the discussion at Talk:List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband#Goals in November 2006.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

Giantsnowman's latest concern is that player infobox text should maintain the nice formatting of having all the equals signs lined up neatly (yes, as they are on the template documentation page); however, I've seen countless edits removing the whitespaces to reduce article sizes considerably. Plus, I checked Cristiano Ronaldo, Harry Kane and Scott McTominay's articles, and they all have non-formatted infoboxes. (If that's the preferred way, I can send him a list to correct them all.) There's also the issue that he reverts edits such as these when they contain salient updates, such as Ballard's Northern Ireland cap last night and his most recent EFL appearance. - Seasider53 (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not a fan of white-space, and against shift-space which actually adds to article data-length which must be avoided per WP:AS. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the whitespace either and see no reason for it to be used (and certainly not to be reverted when someone takes it out, although I wouldn't bother doing an edit purely for that reason), it makes no difference to the reader and creates needless bytes without actually making the display better for editors - in some cases it sends it to a 2nd line which makes it more difficult to scan over. Crowsus (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding whitespace is also pointless because it gets automatically removed by users using the visual editor. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, don't need to go adding whitespace, as adds nothing for the readers. Although I think the Visual Editor sometimes messes with the whitespace (either adding or removing whitespace, can't remember which one), but no need to spend time doing it otherwise. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Seasider53: it would have been nice if you had talked to me before running here, and it would have been polite if you had notified me about the discussion. All I was doing was restoring the infobox formatting shown at {{Infobox football biography}}, nothing more, nothing less. I am fully aware that many articles do not comply with that, so what? I have better things to do that go around altering infoboxes all the time, I also suggest you do the same. PS the Ballard update was undated, unexplained, and violated WP:LIVESCORES. GiantSnowman 12:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Polite? Right. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Also, Olajide Usman Olanrewaju was asking why you reverted his Ballard "test edit" but you didn't respond. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually monitor talk pages, so I didn't see this. I've now responded. Please AGF. GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Those weren't the reasons you gave for the revert. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the whitespace as making it easier to edit. It's a shame the visual editors removes it.--EchetusXe 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Infobox formatting might not make a difference to the reader, but they do to the editor... GiantSnowman 15:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that as an editor, for me personally the whitespace helps on the eyes and keeps things tidier. But it's not an issue either way too much. --SuperJew (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent to this. I probably used to prefer the whitespace, but now I don't. This is all personal preference though. What I think shouldn't be done is format the infobox by putting years, clubs, caps, and goals in one line (such as here). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

One small issue regarding whitespace in the infobox is that it slightly messes things up when editing through mobile. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the 'one line' display is awful. GiantSnowman 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO the one-line approach is easily the cleanest and best for me as an editor. Everything for one spell is there together on a single line, nice and easy. BigDom (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Prefer one line approach. Slightly prefer spacing over not spacing, but ambivalent. Am completely against the idea of "blocking" the years/clubs/caps/goals together, as can currently be seen at Ryan Williams (soccer, born 1993). However, I'll usually follow whatever format is usually there, because it's not worth arguing over imo. Gricehead (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything Griceland just said. I prefer the one-line, especially for players with many many clubs (it's actually the same format standings tables use). However, like he said I don't care that much and just follow whatever style is already there. I also don't like the blocking years1,years2,years3,club1,club2,club3,apps1,apps2,apps3,goals1,goals2,goals3 - that is terrible RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

My only preference is to avoid blocking the years, clubs, caps, goals together as mentioned above. I wouldn't spend the time changing it, but it is the most difficult to work with. Jogurney (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think one line is easiest to navigate, and blocking the least. Whitespace is also easier on the eyes. To be honest, everyone seems to have a different preference so not sure if an exercise in standardizing makes sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I quite like whitespace. But everyone has their own ways of doing things, and as far as I know there is nothing wrong with doing what you do here as long as it doesn't mess up the page. Quite apart from that, if we did decide to make whitespace standard then going through all the articles that don't use that format nad fixing it would take an eternity. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer without the spaces, and it doesn't make that much of a difference to the editor, to be honest. To be fair, I've seen GS revert me a couple of times because of this, and I'm glad that this discussion appeared here. I see two ways of resolving this: either we reach some consensus on whether we will always use the spacings (or not), or we stop reverting people because of this. MYS77 ^✉ 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted you only when you changed from one established style to your own preferred style... GiantSnowman 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

See, I prefer it with spacing, and I think all the parameters for a certain club should be on the same line (i.e. years1, clubs1, caps1, goals1 should all be on the same line, same for years2, and so on). What I have a problem with is people saying it needs to be exactly the same as the documentation on the template page, which is absolute nonsense. If anything, the documentation needs to be changed to reflect the way the template is actually used. – PeeJay 19:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Except, of course, there is no one way that "the template is actually used", as this discussion makes perfectly clear. If there's an established style on a page simply do not change it to your own preferred style, and then everyone is happy... GiantSnowman 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it certainly isn't used in the way the documentation shows! Also, how is anyone supposed to know what the "established" style is? You're certainly guilty of changing away from the "established" style on some of the articles I've got on my watchlist. – PeeJay 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help to explain why Kosovo amateur national team can´t count as Kosovo national team

Some new national teams, such as Kosovo national football team, are rediscouvering their past. However, in this process, people are often driven by their desires and feelings. In this particular case, an editor is wanting to include a tournament from 1975 organised by the Yugoslav Football Association and named "Tournament of Brotherhood and Unity" in which all Yugoslav republics and provinces had their subassociations forming each an amateur team to represent them. The tournament was won by Kosovo who were also the hosts. The problem is that all teams were amateur (the tournament itself was meant to promote amateur football) and the teams resembled nothing as how real national teams of each of the republics or province would had looked like. None of the Yugoslav stars from that time could play for its corresponding team cause they were all professionals by either playing outside or in the Yugoslav First League, which became fully-professional in 1967. Even Yugoslav Second League was semi-professional, so these amateur teams representing the Yugoslav republics and provences were formed mostly by uncknown third league amateur players. In my view that obviously can´t be related to nowadays national teams most of those former Yugoslav republics and provinces formed nowadays.

Here is the discussion: Talk:Kosovo_national_football_team#About_Kosovo_national_team's_Yugoslav_era. You can also see article history. FkpCascais (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes a "league cup"?

I'm a bit confused on what a "league cup" is. Are, for example, the FA Trophy and EFL Trophy league cups? Or should they go under "Other" in a player's "Club career statistics"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

They go under 'other'; the English league cup is the EFL Cup. It is a competition open only to clubs playing in the English league system. GiantSnowman 15:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Therefore, there is only one league cup per country? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No - different English league systems have their own league cups, but those are so minor that they're not really relevant to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is only one 'English league system' - there is the EFL and then there is non-league football... GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's one overarching structure, but different lower league systems have their own league cups... Southern Football League Cup (England)... SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

... which some editors put in the League Cup column, because they are league cups. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That is wrong IMHO. GiantSnowman 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily in mine. The column has never, as far as I'm aware, been consensually restricted to the EFL Cup and predecessors. Years ago, when we used templates for stats tables, I think the structure of the template probably did restrict the column (if present) to a named national league cup, but one of the reasons for ditching the templates was the greater flexibility offered by a wikitable. As SportingFlyer suggested, there are relatively few players where stats are available for non-league league cups, but where they are available, it does seem logical that they should go in that column. We put non-league "league" apps in the league division column, even though they're not Prem/EFL... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A player who begins his career in the Premier League and plays in the EFL Cup will have apps in the 'league cup' column'. If that player then goes on to play in non-league and plays in e.g. the Southern Football League Cup they will also (under your suggestion) have apps in the 'league cup' column. That is (IMHO) confusing. GiantSnowman 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Meh, it's fine. If someone plays an EPL Cup game at Fulham and a Southern League Cup game at Alvechurch in the same career, those will be in different rows - and it's no different than someone who plays an EPL Cup game with Fulham and a French League Cup game with, oh St-Etienne. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what footnotes are for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A League Cup is a cup where participation is restricted to members of a certain league(s). The Southern Football League Cup is a League Cup just like the EFL Cup - See League_Cup#Europe. Compared to a Domestic Cup which is not restricted to certain leagues and can even include Amateur teams. I've included in Stats Tables separate columns for League Cup and Domestic Cup, and used footnotes to distinguish what appearances were where. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I am aware, yes - although not every country has one. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would say that the League Cup column relates to the League Cup of whichever league the player played in at the time. And a League Cup in this context is a cup open to all the members of that league but not anyone else. So the FA Trophy is definitely not a League Cup because it is only open to teams from multiple leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the EFL Cup open to four leagues, for a total of 92 clubs? I'm not an expert on English football, but isn't the EFL Cup for divisions 1 to 4, and the FA Trophy for divisions 5 to 8? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's only open to the top four divisions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So both the EFL Cup and the FA Trophy have the same "status". In the sense that, EFL Cup is for all clubs in divisions 1-4, FA Trophy for all clubs in divisions 5-8. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sort of, although the FA Trophy is only for non-league clubs. Which kinda defeats the whole "League Cup" purpose. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the FA Trophy is NOT a league cup! GiantSnowman 19:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand why (!) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The League Cup was created as a knockout competition only for teams in the Football League. The FA Amateur Cup also existed only for amateur teams. The FA Trophy was then created in the 1960s because there were some semi-professional teams which were not eligible for either cup, and encompasses four different leagues: the National League, the Southern League, the Isthmian League, and the Northern League, as opposed to say the Southern League Cup, which is only for teams playing in one of the three divisions in the Southern League. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't the EFL Cup encompass two different leagues: the Premier League and the EFL? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to know some English football history - although run by separate entities now (the EFL and the Premier League), the top 4 leagues in English football were and still are known as "the Football League", whilst the leagues below that are known as "Non-League" (i.e. this recent BBC article). The issue is that the EFL Cup was founded in 1960 and until 2016 was called the League Cup (and indeed many still refer to it as such) because it is only open to those 92 clubs in the top 4 divisions. Therefore, the "League Cup" column on English football bios has always referred to that competition exclusively - competitions such as the EFL Trophy, whilst league-specific, are not for the whole "Football League" and were defined as "Other". Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The columns for the Career Stats table don't refer to a specific competition though, since they are general categories. There isn't a UEFA Champions League column, there's a Continental column, which contains UEFA Champions League, Europa League, CONCACAF Champions League, etc. depending on where that player has played. Hence, League Cup needs to follow the same rules and refer to any League Cup (including non-EFL Cups). If the League Cup table can include other League Cups such as a Scottish League cup, a Portuguese league cup, then by definition should also include other English League Cups such as the Southern League Cup. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about other nations, but in the England, the term 'League Cup' refers to the EFL Cup. To refer to the EFL Trophy or FA Trophy (or FA Vase for that matter) as 'League Cups' seems ridiculous, and they should go in the 'other' column. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

For UK readers, however, it is logical to separate them purely because the EFL Cup was for over 50 years "The League Cup", and is regularly still referred to as such. They are listed separately on most UK football bios. Some examples Jermaine Beckford, Grant Leadbitter, Jason Pearce et al. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A player can appear for a club in the FA Trophy and the Southern League Cup in the same season, pretty self explanatory that the FA Trophy cannot therefore appear in the League Cup column. I agree with Struway that South League Cup data should go in the League cup column if it is available.--EchetusXe 21:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a solution to a problem that generally doesn't exist. Most players in the Southern League Cup aren't notable enough for an article anyway, and some of those don't have biographies detailed enough for a full appearances table. For that very small subset, they've played professionally and have therefore probably played in the League Cup/EFL Cup and it would therefore be less confusing to put the SLC/Trophy games into the "Other" column with footnotes (i.e. see Carl Dickinson). Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

huh, Carl Dickinson hasn't played in or indeed been eligible to play in any League Cup competition besides the EFL Cup?--EchetusXe 08:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because I can't find a player with an article who has (thus backing my point up). I was pointing out how Diuckinson's table dealt with competitions that were "Other" (via footnotes). 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Harry Crawford (footballer) is a player who has played in the Southern League Cup, with stats for that going under 'other', whilst Tommy Wright (footballer, born 1984) is an example of one where it is listed under League Cup. I agree with Black Kite that they should go under 'other' as it's less confusing. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the former isn't sourced. A better example is Luke Gambin. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree they should go under 'other' and only the League Cup/EFL Cup should be in 'league cup' column. GiantSnowman 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GS and others. The "League Cup" / EFL Cup is a specific English competition with unique stats and distinct profile to "other" cups and trophies. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but I'd have to agree with those who suggested that any league cup should go into the league cup column, with notes to say which League Cup they played in, as is sometimes required with those who've played in multiple countries. As for the FA Trophy, Vase et al. I'd say that it's the organiser who matters more. Those are FA competitions, a League Cup is one which is open to all members of the organising League (plus guests in the case of the EFL Cup. Asterixtintin (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, this question was specifically for Hady Ghandour. He played in the FA Trophy and EFL Cup, and is(-ish) eligible to play in the EFL Cup (Charlton were eliminated before he got to make an appearance). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Troll(s) back?

Has our "pest" returned (e.g. here)? I have some talk pages on my watchlist which is how I noticed and unfortunately remembered the types of editing made. As before, thankfully people from your project spots and reverts them before I do. I never thought we would never see of these edits again after months out (quite close to a Venus year in fact). Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely the same person - check out the gleeful edit summary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Major clue from the edit summary I linked there. I'm not sure if any of us would catch the LTA out of Wikipedia as the troll could be anywhere in the world. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

His IP address is from South Wales. So if anybody happens to be around there.... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP is fascinating. I must have reverted him a good half dozen to a dozen times last yea. Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Trolling round 2: I fear this nonsense will never stop after this latest incarnation. @REDMAN 2019: - I see from geolocate from one of the pesky IP addresses appears to be located at Birmingham in response to your South Wales answer. Lockdown definitely has not worked in the trolling aspect or the location of the IP addresses appears to be inaccurate. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

He must have moved, I used geolocate and it came up with a place just north of Cardiff. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wales is in lockdown so he doesn't have much else to do other than smoke weed and troll. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone thinks this is just one person who trolls and moves around the south-west part of the UK in lightning fast efforts, the geolocate feature could be inaccurate. From this IP range, these two IP addresses (Special:Contribs/87.74.55.38 and Special:Contribs/87.74.55.185} look similar but the geolocate feature points at two different locations of England. They'd both edited Wikipedia on 27 February within two hours of each other so catching the fugitive is not as straightforward as one may thought. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

All the addresses are from West England/South Wales. We could have a group of people (4 maybe?) in the same general area coordinating their trolls. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They'd made accounts as well with 4 separate names with a number at the end such as Mike Matthews17, Cez Cherry25, Fez Hodgson13 and Mark Simmons07 if I recall correctly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider just revert, block, ignore... rather than giving the idiot the attention they seek and don't deserve? Just a thought. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nanthawat Suankaeo and Nantawat Suankaew

These are obviously about the same person. The former did redirect to the latter but a user has decided to revert that. There was even an AfD about it with clear consensus. Please can an admin take a look? Spiderone 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 23:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

B teams in infoboxes

It has been long established that B teams that play in the same league system as the parent club (Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, Netherlands etc) should be included in the infobox/stats table. A new editor (who I don't think is actually new) called @Atlaslion1912: disagrees and is now edit warring to remove them at the Zakaria Labyad article. Please can somebody assist? GiantSnowman 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help with brigading

Bengaluru FC page, especially "Supporters" section is brigaded by fans of rival club (Kerala Blasters). These editors are adding "controversy" section just to make others look bad. Controversy section is given WP:UNDUE weight, just so it can be made to look bad. 43.239.79.222 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all Im not a Kerala Blasters FC fan. My support is with Indian football. You can verify it by checking my edit history. And the incidents in the controversy section describes an event that happened first time in india. So it has enough weightage to be added in the article. This user is trying to remove that just because he don't like it. WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Can a neutral editor please look at the controversy section and evaluate undue weight? 43.239.79.222 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No evidence of brigading, and the events as the first action taken against a club, are notable enough to be mentioned. However it really shouldn't be a "controversy" section (which are generally advised against) and it is unclear if the actions are related to the fine - which mentions only abuse of officials rather than the alleged violence.

In short I would suggest a review of the sources and rewriting the section to more accurately reflect the references.

The section removed about blocking fans access is also somewhat irrelevant unless there is significant coverage and confirmation it took place (otherwise it is hearsay). Koncorde (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Just double checking, and yes. The violence is alleged. Source does not say it actually happened. Claims are one set of fans against another. Reference to earlier violence at another match by fans explicitly states "videos of a policeman assaulting one of the away fans with a baton surfaced on the internet" which in and of itself does not pass the sniff test. Is the source, Sportskeeda self published by the way? It appears to be blogging site around sport with user generated content. Generally speaking this isn't good enough for sourcing controversial claims, and really is questionable for general use.

The fine for misconduct of the fans in contrast is sourced to TOI which is questionable on politics, but should be fine for sports. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

False info on FIFA U-17 World Cup

The vandal / edit warrior based in Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia is back and still constantly reverting the page FIFA U-17 World Cup to their preferred version, which includes false information about past tournaments. I previously asked for help related to this IP hopper at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 135#U-17 World Cup article vandalism. Thank you for any assistance provided in this matter. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Division in each line of career statistics table?

Hi all - just wanted to confirm that we had come to a consensus that the division should be included in each season of a club statistics table? @NZFC: keeps reverting my edits of adding the division to each season of Roy Krishna career statistics table because NZFC thinks it looks nicer with only one mention of the division. I know we've been through this a lot before and I know the footballer player template guidelines supports my edits as well but want to make sure we are all in agreement. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that the player MOS states that it's preferable to state the division in each row, I would go with that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines say This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea. That doesn't mean every single article has to follow them. As I've pointed out, I don't believe it is best for Krishna article and I know it's other stuff exists but Lionel Messi doesn't use it for La Liga because of the so many years in the same league. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Using your argument NZFC, if the layout that I am trying to implement is used in the best biographies and judged by the community, then we should follow the MOS and include division for each season every time so that articles are at their best versions. I can pick out 1,000+ great articles of footballers that follow the correct style. And frankly Messi's stats table is incorrect and should be fixed. Also, in your reverts you keep double linking to New Zealand Football Championship and you keep adding sponsors to leagues and cups, which are also things we avoid. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The MoS also says as to repetition of league division, this thread suggests that, while "there is a slight advantage in accessibility when you repeat cells, rather than rowspanning them", "our readers won't be disadvantaged noticeably if we don't repeat every cell that contains duplicate data". So the MoS itself says that either way is fine. Personally I think the rowspanned version is neater and looks better and more easily readable, and that is the reason we do it for the club name, isn't it? I would propose that we either have both divison and club rowspanned or both division and club repeated. --SuperJew (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry yes revert has caught your other fixes you've made and I was going to fix after decision had been made. With both leagues, there really isn't divisions, teams in the National Football Championship don't have relegation/promotion either. Same with the A-League so there isn't any lower higher divisions. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: you are bringing up a thread from 5 years ago. The MOS has changed since then and the decision was to include the division per row. If you go to Cristiano's article now - it follows the current MOS. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: What I quoted is what appears in the MoS as of right now. If it is irrelevant to your discussion, then you shouldn't be basing your discussion upon it. --SuperJew (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Please look at the template right now that you just linked to. The MOS supports my argument and editing. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: Firstly, I linked a MoS, not a template. Please use the correct terminology so that we are all speaking the same language. Secondly, the MoS indeed uses the format you are implementing, but at the same time it also says to note that regarding the repetition of division, which is the crux of your discussion, that there is no noticeable disadvantage either way, which would mean that there should be no problem rowspanning the division as NZFC did, or at the very minimum we can discuss changing the MoS's default view. --SuperJew (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue itself, not say "The MoS says it's like this" or "It appears in X article like so". What is the actual reason you think repeating the division is preferable to rowspanning it? --SuperJew (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: First off, you just linked to what is specifically called a "Player article template" so don't try to belittle me. Also, my argument is that it is the consensus of wikipedia editors to include the division for each season. NZFC has to present a valid argument other than it's just their personal preference on only Roy Krishna's article. We have guidelines for a reason - they're to be used. Are you okay if I just start putting tables in players articles that record fouls committed or noses picked instead of appearances and goals, or order the clubs and seasons chronologically backwards? Rupert1904 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: If it came up for discussion I would oppose these additions. But the reasons I would give aren't "consensus, consensus, consensus", but rather "difficulty to verifiably source at most levels and not having a single agreed-upon definition (same as assists), not a notable or relevant stat for a soccer game, and that the average reader wouldn't expect the order to be chronologically backwards though I can see it's merits and honestly I think it could be fine and if most users think it's preferable we could implement it as long as we keep it consistent on Wikipedia." --SuperJew (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I remember from a previous discussion a few years ago that somebody raised possible accessibility issues (re: screen readers) for 'merged' cells in a stats table, rather than individual lines. Unsure what the basis for that is though. GiantSnowman 21:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman that is in the link that SuperJew posted. Was decided it shouldn't be an issue anymore as readers have got better. Also Rupert1904 there is nothing wrong with bringing up old threads as it brings context to information already discussed. I hadn't seen that before so it's news to me. Lastly it's not set in stone, things can change which is why we are having this discussion again, for this layout, having the rowspan for club and league I believe looks better on the Krishna article. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure there is nothing wrong with bringing up that discussion but it's out of context now as the MOS has changed in the intervening years. The consensus now is to add the division to each line of a stats table. There is a MOS and guidelines for a reason. We don't pick and choose just based off if we think one looks cuter in one article and then use a different format for another. At this point, why even follow any guidelines? Should we all just edit articles in a vacuum and hope other people think they look good too? NZFC - your argument is not based in any guidelines or consensus but only your personal preference. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Except SuperJew point does show that the context of readability doesn't affect the decision anymore regarding layout. Mine isn't just cuter, nice wording too, comes across petty. Besides it looking better, I did point out that it also makes sense for both the NZFC and A-League to have rowspan because they don't have promotion or relegation, so there isn't league divisions to either of those leagues. I think for cases with like that or for spending a number of years in same league, rowspan is appropriate and should be considered in future. So yes I am asking for a change in consensus when relevant even if these MOS have been like that for years, they can be changed and adjusted. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And I think it looks better with division per row so who wins? Are we just going to keep reverting each other until we die? Rupert1904 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok so no that isn't the point, I just wanted to discuss it first. Normally when someone edits and someone reverts you discuss. Also on that you have current MOS so can see where you are coming from. Have done this so it's changed to your edits as you've requested and per current standards, all I would like to discuss with others who have an interest in this project, is if it's possible to maybe have different MOS in context of different players and leagues having different requirements. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In general, we try to reduce unnecessary repetition, and this is to reduce clutter and improve readability. In this case using rowspanning as opposed to repeating the division is in-line with said target. --SuperJew (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It reduces readability by having missing division rows. The division should be listed in each row.--EchetusXe 08:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: So why have the club rowspanned? Honestly, I find the oddest thing about this that there's no consistency inside the table itself. --SuperJew (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I can live with rowspans, as repeating the same text over and over looks just, odd. Kante4 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer rowspans, but not enough to get in a debate over it. This shall be my only post on the topic RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's a case such as Lionel Messi where it's the same league for each club, or the same club and the same league, then that's fine. If the club/s switches divisions then it can get confusing.--EchetusXe 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

So you're supporting a per case basis as opposed to a blanket rule, and would say that how NZFC formatted for Roy Krishna (which is the specific case starting this discussion) is fine since both the A-League and NZFC don't have relegation or promotion so the clubs don't change leagues. --SuperJew (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

To have this on a case by case basis is really silly though. If it's for readability issue or being worried about the average person who comes on wikipedia for information and doesn't know football leagues around the world as well we do, they will just be confused. The A-League could implement promotion and relegation at some stage or a club could move leagues. Take for instance Roy Krishna's club ATK being merged with Mohun Bagan A.C. a few months ago. Mohun was in the competing I-League before 2020–21. Or something that happens more regularly, players leave non promotion/relegation leagues like the A-League and MLS (which there are only a handful of around the world to begin with) and move to leagues that have a system promotion and relegation. Should Frank Lampard's stats with NYCFC in the MLS be rowspanned just for the last two years of his stats table? Or what about Andrea Pirlo, Didier Drogba, Landon Donovan or Robbie Keane? We can't go back and forth within an individual stats table or on a per player basis. It's silly, confusing, will look incorrect, and we will have to debate it here every time. We should have a standard form as the point of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge in a clean and concise way. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But as you say, nothing is clean and concise, there has to be some flexibilty and people can use commonsense. I agree the current MOS is fine for most cases, but I also believe there are cases where a second MOS is appropriate like with Messi and like with the Krishna article. He has been with the same team in the same league twice for several years that I feel it does not make sense to show the division each line. If that happen to change and it got promotion/relegation, then it's MOS could change then as well.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: I still haven't seen an answer to why the club is rowspanned but the league isn't? As you said We can't go back and forth within an individual stats table. --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of repeating the same information again in a cell below, that just adds to data limit and unnecessary extra text, repeat, repeat, repeat. Completely unnecessary in my opinion when you can convey the same information with one line of text in a merged cell. As for speech software, they generally will say the league for the first season cell and then go on to read the seasons and statistics until there is a league change. It will not repeat the same league information for each row until there is a change. I really don't see it as a problem personally. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well if we decide now to rowspan, then it's frustrating how many times I've been reverted over the years for rowspanning leagues in stats tables for not following the MOS to a T. This also brings up the question as to whether colspan in a stats table should always only be 2 spaces or if they can extend to 4, 6, 8, 10, etc depending on how many competitions that player did not compete in that season. I believe the argument in the past has been about WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Wouldn't we want to implement the same ruling here so we're not overly repeating? Rupert1904 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You know, I was looking at a bunch of different player articles, and really, I would say it depends on the players career to how a table should be built. Govvy (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally think we should avoid that. I suggest either sticking to division per season or rowspanning - maybe with the exception of a one club man who plays in the same division without a name change in their entire career likee (Paolo Maldini or Jamie Carragher; but even then this might confuse readers. It will get too complicated if we do it on a per player basis and this will also likely cause more debates and reversions/edit wars if we don't have a set rule. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

While I personally would prefer rowspan as the standard used, I can live with it now being as more standard leagues have levels clubs can play for. So I don't think its needed as a per player basis so its becomes different for each player but that we allow a second MOS for these more exceptional cases where it is shown that they have spent number of years with a team/league or the league they are playing in doesn't have levels. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can get more thoughts on this or is it just going to die out and stay as it is? NZFC^(talk)(cont) 03:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Adel Taarabt

Can I ask, does anyone know what is with the weird symbols next to the name with the (Tamaziǧt: ⴰⴷⴻⵍ ⵜⴰⵔⴰⴱⵜ) Is that really right?? Govvy (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's the alphabet used for that language, see Tifinagh. However I have removed as it's not needed. GiantSnowman 12:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it's the only article I've ever seen that format used, it's all new to me and I never heard of the language before. The Tamaziǧt page looks all correct, but I wanted to know if the script there (on Tarrabt's article), if that's correct and not been messed with as there was some IPs messing around with the article before. This wasn't a call to remove content, just more to verify it's correct. I couldn't work out or see the editor who added it in the history to ask, wasn't sure who to ask. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're removing Barber text from articles then say hello to "Category:Articles with text in Berber languages" (It won't link so just search it). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To link to a category, open with [[: rather than with [[. Category:Articles with text in Berber languages. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the question at hand: I don't know if Tifinagh is commonly used in Morocco (to the point where it would be useful to have it in Taarabt's article), or if it is commonly used in specific parts of the country (where maybe Taarabt is from?). We probably need an opinion of someone from Morocco. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Taarabt is apparently from the region and the language should stay, according to @SuperJew: who has re-added it... GiantSnowman 19:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that I doubt the translations (of either version of his name) but what is the source? Koncorde (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No idea, if you copy and paste that into google all you get is wikipedia and all the mirrors of the article. So it doesn't return a source! Govvy (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Japanese names on national team page.

The page Japan women's national football team has the names of all players in the Japanese. I removed them as I don't see the need (in the instances where we don't have a page on English Wikipedia, I inserted an ill template to link to the Japanese wikipage until the English one is created). If a reader is interested enough for the Japanese name, they can find it in the wikipage of the player, and from there can go further to the Japanese wikipage. I was reverted by Seany91 who said This has been a long-standing practice on this page and, AFAIK, doesn't violate any WP conventions; if you want to be bold, at least discuss first. so here I am bringing it up for discussion. What are your thoughts?

BTW I don't think that it being a long-standing practice carries weight either way, but if we are talking about that way, I'll bring up that the men's page doesn't have this practice. I see that South Korea and China women's teams also have this practice, though the men's pages don't. I would theorise that the men's pages are more patrolled and therefore such a practice was reverted/deleted there.

--SuperJew (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no value in adding them as per your reasons. Kante4 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I also see no value, and WP:Interlanguage links should be used over plain links to Japanese Wikipedia, which is the outdated way of linking to other Wikipedia's articles on things. I think the interlanguage link approach, displaying the English name, as this is the English language Wikipedia, is the best way. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to SuperJew, Japan women's national football team has had Japanese names since at least 2009, which well predates me editing on here. ILL is certainly a good alternative, but that requires the editor having Japanese language ability. Without those names in non-Latin scripts already in place, would SuperJew even be able to identify the correct ILL links in his edits? Also, just hypothesizing here, having these names in original languages works for women teams because—as we all know—many editors routinely nominate female player articles for deletion since WP:NFOOTY is inherently sexist, but that's a discussion for another day. Seany91 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: FWIW I appreciate your attempt to preserve some of the Japanese links via ILL, but none of them worked even when Japanese-language articles exist because, I assume, you don't read Japanese scripts and messed up the Japanese names as a result. Which sort of demonstrates the issue I bring up above, that the practicalities of implementing ILL only works if the editor at least read the script if not the language itself. Seany91 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Seany91: I do apologise if some of the links were done to the wrong place in the ILL (seems there was an addition of the space - I must've copied from the display text instead of the link), but that is easily fixable (and I should've doublechecked my edit better) :) Regarding the issue of deletion, I agree there is too much focus by a few editors to nominate specifically women footballers to AfD, but as all the blue-linked players in this page are notable as players who represented their country internationally, it is not an issue in this case IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree you should only use the English-language names, as this is the English-language Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 19:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mergers

Taking Javi Hernández as example (in his current club, i only edit there and in Antonio López Habas), the following:

ATK (football club) has merged with Mohun Bagan A.C. apparently. But the new season has already started and there does not seem to be an article regarding the new denomination. I keep reverting and being reverted (so, for now i stop editing there and in Mr. Habas), but when you click in the current club all you have is a redirect.

Attentively, thank you very much for any possible inputs on the matter --Quite A Character (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just (speed)read a discussion held in late September 2020 here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohun_Bagan_A.C.#Requested_move_23_September_2020), apparently it was closed without any verdict. Another one took place the following month, (also) seemingly to no avail. --Quite A Character (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Quite A Character I think best way resolve this problem is by renaming Mohun Bagan A.C. to Atk Mohun Bagan FC.As per merger details and club officials comments there in media are also bit confusing.So the renaming would solve problem.ThanksWhiteFalcon1 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Football at the Indian Ocean Island Games

Do we know if matches played at this competition are considered full A-national team games? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

LUA ERROR !!!!

Can anybody please check what this error is about. Is it a bug or something?? Slowly its affecting a lot of league tables, Template:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round group tables, 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification#Current stage (first round) 3, 2020–21 Indian Super League season#Regular season, 2020–21 A-League#League table.... and many more. Drat8sub (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

see section #League table error above. Gricehead (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

League table error

Is someone able to fix the league table on 2020 Kazakhstan Premier League? It's coming up with a "Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'formatDate' (NaN)." and I can't quite work out what's up with the code. Thanks. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with the actual league table module itself - it's been raised here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As a workaround, you can add |ranking_style=ppgpts to the table. You'll get a ppg column, but at least you'll have a table. Gricehead (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Also under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'formatDate' (NaN)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gricehead (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

AFC Champions League

Can I ask, where do we stand on the notability criteria for players in the AFC? I was trying to work out if Dylan Ryan (soccer) which I had moved into draft space qualifies or not. As he seems to have been moved right back into main-space. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

He played in a competitive match between teams from fully professional leagues, so that would pass WP:NFOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The AFC Champions League itself doesn't grant notability. What grants a player notability is playing a competitive match between two clubs in professional leagues. As Struway said, the player has played a competitive match (in the AFC Champions League), for a club in a professional league (A-League) against a club in a professional league (Chinese Super League). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

La Liga page move

Can I ask an admin to reverse this page move of La Liga to La Liga Santader. Not only is the sponsor name missing a letter, we don't have league pages under their sponsor's names. Valenciano (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done (although not sure you needed to be an admin to do it – usually when that happens I get a red box asking me to delete the page I'm moving it to). Number 57 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you do need to be an admin (or have pagemover rights?) since the original page exists as a redirect and you can't move a page to a title that already exists? Or have I misunderstood? Thanks anyway. Valenciano (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Relegation/promotion play-offs stats in player's infobox

Should we add relegation/promotion play-offs (D1/D2, D2/D3, etc.) stats to player's infobox as it states "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only"? Does it count towards league games or should be added somewhere else? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not count as domestic league games. They should not be included in the infobox, but should be listed as 'Other' in any career stats table. GiantSnowman 22:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Nations League

Hello everyone, is it worth mentioning in the "international career" of the players, in particular the Swiss ones, that they were ranked 4th in the 2018-19 UEFA Nations League ?? David Cok 122 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, wh not. Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's obviously notable information. As long as it's not included in the honours section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Cok 122 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. Can an admin please protect Stadio San Paolo. It's been at RFPP since yesterday afternoon and still no one has protected it. Over night, someone even moved the page! (I moved it back). Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Semi-protected for two weeks. Number 57 15:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Romuald Ntsitsigui

Hi all, I was tinkering at Romuald Ntsitsigui, and the infobox starts by saying 2011-2014 - team unknown. I have a reference which suggests he was playing for Mangasport in 2012 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18702878), but no start or end date. What would the project suggest to be the best way to handle this? Red Fiona (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Redfiona99: I would remove the 2011-2014 - team unknown, and extend the 2014-2016 period of Mangasport to 2012-2016. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's of any help, National Football Teams have him at Mangasport from 2011 to 2016, then a short stint at Triane in 2016/17, then back at Mangasport from 2018 to present. I would assume the period in Albania to be a loan. So, I would put 2011-present for Mangasport, and a loan to Triane in 2016-2017. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd recommend assuming it was a loan to KF Tirana... That club's season article 2016–17 KF Tirana season#August says he signed a two-year contract in August 2016, with still-live club source. Pity that season article is incomplete, it might confirm exactly when he left.

@Redfiona99: The National Football Teams source above would verify 2011–2016 at Mangasport, then 2016–2017 at Tirana, then 2018–date back at Mangasport, so that's what I'd do. This Albanian-language source, from August 2016 when he was on trial at KF Tirana before signing for them, says he'd been at Mangasport since 2011 (Google translate seems to work OK on Albanian :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all Red Fiona (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested clubs

Hi all, @Geschichte: has been requesting the creation a large number of clubs at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer). A lot of them seem like they wouldn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. What are others thoughts? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Which ones are problematic? Most seem to have articles on other wikis. Number 57 15:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NFOOTY isn't for clubs. Otherwise we wouldn't have any clubs at all from Armenia, Georgia, Iceland, Iraq, Northern Ireland, etc., or any women's clubs other than in England and the US. We generally accept clubs who have played in the top level domestic division, and/or in the domestic cup competition (such as the FA Cup, or Coppa Italia), per WP:FOOTYN. Obviously GNG applies. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I only looked at the English clubs, but all of those have played in the FA Cup -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of those could have articles with a little elbow grease, but there are none that jump out at me where I'm going "how does that not have an article?" The German teams are historically notable and the US teams are probably non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The German, Polish, Zimbabwean and Turkish clubs seem to have dubious notability. Just asking as I know that notability varies from Wiki to Wiki. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Four of the five Zimbabwean clubs listed have played in the Premier division in the last ten years. The first German listed played in the DDR-Liga (second tier), another one I checked played in the Oberliga Südwest when it was one of the regionalised top divisions. Number 57 20:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Cat:FA Cup winning managers

User:Luis9595 created Category:FA Cup winning managers a few months ago - is this something that is a suitable category? I know there's already a Category:FA Cup winners category but there's a general presumption against "winner" categories per WP:OCAWARD and at the moment this one just includes the likes of Wenger and Pep whose articles already have over 30 categories, so it's hard to argue that it fulfils the necessary criterion of being WP:DEFINING. So I'd tend towards sending it to WP:CFD but I don't have a strong view - can I leave it with you guys? Le Deluge (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, what was the point of creating that category and then only adding 3 of the (hazards a guess) 120 FA Cup-winning managers to it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading WP:OCAWARD, I don’t see how being the manager of a team which wins a major trophy is anything like getting an MTV award or similar.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm unaware of any similar categories. GiantSnowman 18:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There is Category:UEFA Champions League winning managers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Which supports List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, a FA. There is List of FA Cup winning managers, but I'm still not convinced about notability. GiantSnowman 11:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That latter list also includes some questionable information with regard to the early years. Charles W. Alcock may have been secretary of the Wanderers in 1872, but there is no way he was a manager in anything even vaguely approaching the modern sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

James Rowe (football manager)

Apparently one or more people have been having fun with this article lately [13][14]. Too little for admins atm, but more eyes couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet another WP:NFOOTBALL failure that has made it through AfC. Argh! It also appears to have been written by his mother. Number 57 19:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Could pass per WP:BASIC, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If the article is notable, it should be moved to James Rowe (footballer, born 1983) per standard naming conventions for footballers who later moved into coaching/management... GiantSnowman 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on name, so I'll assume you're right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The creator did get a different message from the reviewer: "The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 2% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This just illustrates how poorly AfC works sometimes. It's an obvious failure of the relevant notability guideline (he never played or managed (until today) above the sixth tier), and the article was written by someone with a clear COI (not sure about others, but I almost always check the contributions of AfC creators as many of them are SPAs with COIs). The vast majority of the references are the kind of local press coverage any non-league player or manager would have, or to club or league websites. The only national press references are the Telegraph, which is about him leaving his role as a West Ham youth coach, and two BBC match reports that doesn't actually mention him. He's just been appointed manager of Chesterfield (still failing WP:NFOOTBALL), so now is not a good time to AfD the article (as there will probably be a lot more hits than usual), but I shall do so in the not-too-distant future. Number 57 21:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to see football articles waiting for a review? Hack (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• A few appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts, but I'm not sure how they get there or if it picks up all of them. Number 57 09:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I originally took @Number 57:'s comment It also appears to have been written by his mother. as a light-hearted reference to the detail in the article, but actually it seems it was serious (see Talk:Colwyn Rowe). Surely a matter for COI follow-up actions? Gricehead (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone has mentioned WP:COI to this editor before Valereee did so today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I see ChrisTheDude tagged the page as COI after my post this morning, so between them we're getting there. Gricehead (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen at User talk:Susy211, the template was noticed. At least we have plenty of admins looking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to put a note on her talk page but right after I put the tag on the article the phone rang, and by the time I was next on WP it had completely slipped my mind. Thanks to whoever picked up that ball I dropped...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

notability of amateur league

Hi, I just like to confirm that an amateur league should not have enough notability to have a wiki page. Especially if it is a amateur club of an amateur league. Thanks -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN says that club notability is generally based on whether a team has competed in its country's national cup. Other clubs can still have articles of course, but it's a case of proving that the club has received sufficient independent coverage, per the general notability guidelines. BigDom (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@@Justanothersgwikieditor: are you asking if an amateur league is notable enough to have an article, or an amateur club? The two sentences of your query seem to contradict each other...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I think I kind of asked 2 questions. 1) Is an amateur league notable to have a wiki page? 2) An amateur club playing in said amateur league notable? To be specific, it is about the amateur club Arion Women's Football Club in Singapore. The league that the club played in is an amateur league, see here but played in the Women’s Challenge Cup, see here as Still Aerion FC. I could not quite determine is the Women’s Challenge Cup considered a national cup. If it is deemed a national cup, based on WP:FOOTYN, the article can stay. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the FAS Women's Premier League the top women's division in Singapore? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I believe it is but it is an amateur league. Somehow I missed this page [15], There are currently two women’s leagues; the Women’s Premier League (WPL) and Women’s National League (WNL). On top of that, there is also a knock-out championship coined as the Women’s Challenge Cup (WCC) which is a tournament that wraps up the women’s football season which does not really indicate Women’s Challenge Cup is a national cup or not. I dare not assume. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Read my comment below at #Requested clubs. The league (or club) being amateur or not does not influence its notability. There is no definitive notability guideline for clubs and leagues, but WP:FOOTYN, an essay, says that clubs that have played in the country's domestic cup (say, the FA Cup or Coppa Italia) are notable. Same for leagues: if at least one club in that league can play in the domestic cup, then it's notable. What is more important than all of this is WP:GNG, that every article must abide to. Regarding women's football, I'm sure that >90% of women's leagues worldwide are amateur, and all (bar the English and American top divisions) are not fully-professional. This does not prevent the non-pro clubs/leagues from being created. Surely, all top-division women's leagues should have an article on wiki, as well as top-division clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mascots

What are people's thoughts on the article List of association football mascots? Is it notable but requiring improvement or not notable? Spiderone 18:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say that it's notable but in need of clean-up big time. Specifically the sourcing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Might it be good to enforce some criteria (e.g. must be top division club)? It just seems to be too broad a topic for an encyclopaedia. Almost every club has a mascot. I'm not sure List of association football physios would survive here as long, even though it would have just as many notable entries. Spiderone 21:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I just love the fact that Yeovil's mascot Jolly Green Giant redirects to the sweetcorn brand Green Giant. Also, note Mossley Marv, Mossley's LED lamp mascot (though I would have thought the LED lamp is a well-worn cliche in the world of football mascots). Very sad to see no mention of Dynamo Dresden's 'lucky bug', which I am convinced can give you nightmares. I agree with Spiderone that this list is in dire need of some inclusion criteria; Tamworth's 'Tammy the Lamb' or Basingstoke Town's 'Stokie the Dragon' are probably not worthy of inclusioon. I would remove the red links as well, since I think very few of these are notable in their own right. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more dubious ones and trimmed some of the eye-sore red links. Getting this article into decent shape would likely take hours, though. Spiderone 14:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My main issue with the article is this: I only looked at the England section, but it is clear that almost none of the mascots are notable - almost all the links that are blue actually simply redirect to the club article, where the mascot invariably isn't even mentioned. So in essence we have a list of English clubs and then just a name against it, which frankly tells us nothing encyclopedic. I guess in some cases it tells us what animal the club's mascot is, but "Charlton Athletic - Floyd"....how is that entry in any way useful to anyone.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly? It isn't useful at all. Spiderone 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

FIFA Confederations Cup winning managers

Just came across this page in the new page feed, what do peeps think? A viable list article or should it be deleted? Govvy (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also List of AFC Asian Cup winning managers Govvy (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

They should be expanded. Maybe not to the same level as List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, but at least with a lede, a bit of prose, and some references. Also, FIFA Confederations Cup winning managers should be moved to List of FIFA Confederations Cup winning managers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin or pagemover help needed please

So I was expanding Robert Thompson (English footballer), with the intention of moving him to common name of Bob Thompson. Discovered there was another of that name born in the same year, so created an article for the 2nd one, who should should have been Bob Thompson (footballer, born February 1890), but inadvertently saved the damn thing at Bob Thompson (footballer, born September 1890). So I've moved him to Bob Thompson (footballer, born February 1890) where he belongs, but I can't move Robert Thompson (English footballer) over the redirect.

So could someone please move Robert Thompson (English footballer) to Bob Thompson (footballer, born September 1890). Sorry to be a nuisance. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but this would have been better at WP:RMT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I've made the change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alidu Seidu

May someone move Draft:Alidu Seidu to the mainspace? Footballer has a half dozen appearances this season and passes WP:FOOTY/WP:GNG at this point.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 20:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

List of English footballers

This currently just redirects to a category but there are a handful of stand-alone lists for other nationalities:

• List of Armenian footballers
• List of Azerbaijani footballers
• List of Danish footballers
• List of Taiwanese footballers

Of course, it would take a monumental amount of time and effort to do one for each nationality but does anyone think it's a task worth undertaking? Spiderone 18:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, since these lists largely just duplicate the respective category, does anyone know a shortcut to just copying a list from a category? Spiderone 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be a task worth undertaking? As it is in the examples given, the list format doesn't add anything to the category format. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not worth bothering with. GiantSnowman 19:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we can probably delete these lists, seeing as you can find them at their category pages, etc. Or redirecting.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't see what we gain from any of these... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

They have always survived AfD largely due to WP:CLN; see here and here Spiderone 22:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)