Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 156

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150 ← Archive 154 Archive 155 Archive 156 Archive 157 Archive 158 → Archive 160

Capitalization of Men's Soccer Tournament etc.?

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Over-capitalization. If things like NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament are not the full proper names of the tournaments, I propose to move them to NCAA Division I Men's soccer tournament. Or if they are proper names, let's find some sources to support that interpretation. Women's, too. Championship, too? Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If they are nouns and not proper names they should not be capitalised. Nehme1499 18:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It would be better to say so at the discussion I linked above. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's over capitalisation in this regard but I think the article is named wrong. According to the NCAA website, the competition is officially called the NCAA Division I Men’s Soccer Championship not NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament. Rupert1904 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. With "Championship" there the term is more much common in sources, and is almost always capitalized. Looking at n-gram stats bears this out (for NCAA soccer), but it's a very different picture for basketball. I'll take the NCAA Soccer out of the list and we can fix as you suggest. But there are still other soccer tournaments to consider, such as:
We'll have to look and see what's best there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I tried checking their sources, but they're all unreferenced. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

These, and their year-prefixed articles, are what's left as pretty much unsourced overcapitalized descriptive titles in soccer, not near as many as in some other sports:

Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's take this to Talk:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament#Requested move 23 August 2022. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Number of women footballer articles been moved without discussion by Dorrough618

I came across this user after seeing an edit on an article I watch that needed fixing and noticing they were a temporarily banned user. Looking at their contributions they appear to have a history with other Football project members but one thing that I noticed was a number of page moves. All the below appear to have been done with no discussion and I'm not sure if they are all the right move. Though they could be under WP:COMMONNAME I wasn't sure so thought I would ask here for others opinion.

— NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

At a glance they look fine to me, but if anyone disagrees they can open discussions at WP:RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Players excluded from the team

It can happen a player is excluded from the team for an inderminated time forcing him to train alone or to play for the reserves (usually for disciplinary reasons). How are these players called in English? In Italy, we say those players are "fuori rosa". Dr Salvus 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific term for that in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also not heard of a specific translation of "fuori rosa". I would explain the situation in words, such as The management sent him to train with the reserves for the rest of the season as a form of "punishment" (see Bassel Jradi), depending on what the source says. Nehme1499 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:2021 FIFA Arab Cup squad navigational boxes

These should all be deleted, right? We only have nav boxes for the World Cup and major continental competitions. Nehme1499 12:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Could someone do a joint request for deletion for all the templates? I would do it myself but I'm not sure how to do so. Nehme1499 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
TfD started: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#2021 FIFA Arab Cup squads. Feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Bola de Prata (Portugal)

I am looking to expand the above page to include the All-time Portuguese Primeira Liga top scorers - in the style of List of La Liga top scorers and List of Ligue 1 top scorers. Should I add this onto the article above, potentially changing the name of the article to List of Primeira Liga top scorers, or should I create a separate page? I'd prefer the former but wanted to source the opinion of the crowd. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Create a separate page. The Bola de Prata page should only be about the award given out annually, the list of top scorers is different and notable in its own right. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Definitely have a separate page, they are two different concepts -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, could somebody please have a look at it, add more text etc? Much appreciated. List of Primeira Liga top scorers. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Manchester City F.C. squad

I'd like someone to mediate between myself and another user on the manchester city team nav template, I believe I broke 3RR and have self reverted, the other user has also broken 3RR. They will not supply a source and are ignoring the source provided Paul  Bradbury 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You're removing (for example) Rico Lewis, even though he's in the first-team squad in City's article, and there hasn't been an edit war on that page... Seasider53 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I would remove him from there also, he is not in the squad, there is a cited source that is updated regularly, he is able to play in the first team but is listed as a member of the EDS squad by the source. Do we not use sources anymore? I would remove rico from that page as well, but as this was reverted it seems pointless until there is consensus Paul  Bradbury 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia should provide verifiable information, rather than what we think is right. As such, we should follow what the MCFC source says- both on the article and the template. If there's issues with the source, that's Man City's fault and not ours. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on the website description, I've moved Lewis out of the first team list since it seems pretty clear that he's an EDS player who isn't considered a member of the first team (as opposed to Cole Palmer, who isn't old enough to be on City's Premier League squad but the club considers him a first team player). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
...and it was reverted. This blurb, "The following players include EDS players who train regularly with the first-team squad and who have previously made at least one league appearance.", seems to invite WP:OR since "train regularly with the first-team" is vague and hard to verify. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It was reverted by the same user, who I have invited to this discussion, but seems intent on forcing his own view on all Manchester City pages without engaging with other editors. The text "train regularly with the first team squad" in and of itself implies that they are not members of the first team squad Paul  Bradbury 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this edit based on the updated source, the current version (as of 17:47 UTC) has too many names which are not first team players (yet). Including those players does seem to be WP:OR. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
PaulBradbury, firstly quit being melodramatic, “forcing his view on all Manchester City pages”. What an utterly ridiculous and bizarre statement to make, I have not forced any view on any City page nor have I been involved in any dispute on any City page, neither am I active on “all City pages” and rarely do I ever involve myself in any conflict that would require interaction with other editors. I’m a casual editor of 14 years, I edit as a hobby and update various articles sparingly, so please don’t make silly accusations. I merely reverted the removal of players listed on the main Manchester City page, I gave you my reasoning for my edits, if others want to change the criteria for inclusion then that’s absolutely fine, like I stated on my talk page. Absolutely not precious over this at all guys, so feel free to run with what you decide. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Iggy here. WP:V aside, the template fails its first function because it's difficult to navigate. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am confused, because the point of the template is to link all the current Man City players who have articles. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Amateur career stats

Just looking at the Joshua Bohui article and we have stats for his career in the Southern and Isthmian leagues. It feels a bit like overkill, and I would even argue that the sources may not be 100% reliable. His Leatherhead stats, for example, are sourced to the club's DIY website, which violates WP:SELFPUB. If stats for players outside the top five or six divisions aren't recorded by third-party sources, are they really that relevant or notable? – PeeJay 19:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Senior club stats should be recorded, even if at amateur level, as long as they can be accurately sourced. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see why non-league stats shouldn't be included as long as there is a valid source. Also, the pedant in me feels compelled to point out that the Southern and Isthmian leagues aren't amateur -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Are the sources valid though? – PeeJay 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a slightly different matter. In general - if the sources are inadequate, remove the stats (regarldess of level). In Bohui's example - I have always undertook both the AUFC and FWP sources to be accurate/reliable, and both certainly are widely used. GiantSnowman 09:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. If the sources are reliable, keep. Otherwise remove, regardless of whether they refer to amateur or (semi-)pro. Nehme1499 10:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for 1930 FIFA World Cup

I have nominated 1930 FIFA World Cup for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Small mistake

Even small mistakes by experienced users, such as this one can go unnoticed for a while before another user spots and corrects it today.

Checking the page history, seems like one or two "helpful" people have corrected the positioning before being reverted by other users. I didn't realise I have positioned the refs incorrectly in the first place, hopefully and surely, the error has been corrected and stays that way. Thanks to Mattythewhite for that error spotting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay argues that it's better to have the sources in the body rather than the infobox (dif). Which approach is correct? Nehme1499 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The infobox is meant to be a summary of the facts in the article. The citations for those facts should be in the body of the article, not in the infobox itself. – PeeJay 20:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
But it's very rare for certain data to be mentioned in the body, such as the height. If we were to move the infobox citations to the lead, we would have three sources just for the first sentence (full name, date of birth, position). Unless there's a specific guideline against sourcing this info in the infobox, I think it's better not to keep them there. Nehme1499 21:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I personally don't like references in the infobox either (or the lead). I feel it looks messy. Usually all that info comes from a player profile which I stick in the External Links section - ie. a soccerway link. Whenever I come across a page with everything (name, height, birthday, birthplace, position, team, etc) with a reference it looks like an eyesore to me (especially when it's the same link re-used for each line). I'm with PeeJay on that. We don't put links next to the team caps and goals in the infobox, so the other facts should be viewed the same, it's coming from other sources in the article/external links, as it's a summary. I do, however, put a reference next to full name though, if it's new, not widely reported in common reliable sources. RedPatch (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
If certain info only appears in the infobox, then fine, put the citation in there, but not if it appears elsewhere in the article. – PeeJay 23:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay - the infobox and lede should be summarising information from the body of the article and shouldn't have new information, and therefore no need for referencing. --SuperJew (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It would appear that the references in the infobox for full name and dob are common - if for example we look at Harry Kane, Gareth Bale or Kieran Trippier you will see a ref each for that infobox content, not elsewhere but the lead content. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This would seem to be covered in WP:INFOBOXCITE, and if it is in the infobox only then we should consider either adding it to the main body of the article or removing it from the infobox, given that its purpose is to to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article.

Things like height and full name - which tend to be challenged/vandalised most frequently - should be directly cited in the infobox per WP:MINREF. Everything else should be sourced in the prose ideally. GiantSnowman 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The full name citation can go in the lead section, or if we give the player's full name at the start of the "Early life" section, it can go there. Citations shouldn't really go in the infobox if we can avoid it. – PeeJay 19:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Again - height and full name should be cited in the infobox given the amount of traffic/vandalism they both receive. There is no harm in that, and it is supported by MINREF. GiantSnowman 19:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
only if they are not referenced in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. If the full name appears in the article, which it should, the reference should go there, not in the infobox. Height never appears outside the infobox unless it's especially notable, so putting the source for that in the infobox is fine. – PeeJay 20:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I have spotted the information on the full name and dob on Trent Alexander-Arnold so I have moved those refs in line with the above if that seems fine with other editors. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no instance where we would display the full name outside of the infobox and opening sentence. If we move the ref outside of the infobox, we would have three refs for just the opening sentence of the lead (full name, date of birth, position), which seems too much to me. Nehme1499 10:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather just put in the lead paragraph then, since it usually contains all three: (First Middle Last (born Date) is a footballer who plays as a position for Team) RedPatch (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
You would rather see "First Middle Last[1] (born Date[2]) is a footballer who plays as a position[3] for Team"? Nehme1499 12:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, chances are very likely it could all be the same source, so I'd say First Middle Last (born Date) is a Position for team.[1] For example, soccerway usually has all three of those so instead of repeating the same source three times, we use it once at the conclusion of the sentence since it contains all of the data in it. In the case where its two separate sources we could still put both at the end like [1][2]. For example Chanté Sandiford had the same source for every line in the infobox (plus extras), which is also all in the first sentence. We could remove all the infobox citations and put one in the opening sentence. RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Except of course per MOS:LEADCITE we should ideally not be citing in the lede. GiantSnowman 09:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Except in cases The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. So bottom line we should ideally not be citing in the lede or in the infobox and they should be summarising the information which appears in the body of the article. --SuperJew (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

New article: UEFA Club Competition system, UEFA European club football system or UEFA Access List

Greetings all. Firstly, pleasure to join this project. I am a relatively new Wikipedian but I still wanted to offer my two cents on where I believe there could be a gap.

Similar to pages outlining a national football pyramid; English football league system; French football league system; Danish football league system; I believe we should also create a page outlining the three-tier structure of UEFA club competitions.

I believe it would be interesting to compile information that already exists in the UEFA coefficient article and the format sections under each competition page, that would outline the interconnected nature of UEFA Club Competitions which has increased more-so since the introduction of the Conference League. Such a scenario exists where a club can compete in all three Champions League, Europa League, Conference League competitions in qualifying alone; UCL LP Q2 (eliminated) –> UEL MP Q3 (eliminated) –> UECL MP PO.

Furthermore, compiling together an interconnected article on all three–tiers, provides a good platform to write a better insight into the different permutations of teams that begin in qualification rounds. By that I mean, readers already know (from UCL format sections and coefficient articles) that in default years, for example, runners-up (N2) from associations 10–15 on the UEFA access list enter the Champions League at the Main Path Second Qualification Round. However, what potential scenarios exist for a team in the "Main Path Second Qualification Round" is not as clear cut especially now teams can be relegated onto multiple different paths. A team can start in Q2 of the UCL Main Path but could very well end up in the UEL Playoffs alongside designated champions, or could even end up in the UECL playoffs. Whilst it is good that the format section in the Champions League only talks about the qualification steps in that specific competition, a wider article for the interconnected qualification steps across all three competitions would be a good place for readers interested in understanding that a team in the UCL MP Q2 have the possible outcomes: three wins = UCL Group Stage, a first and/or second win followed by a loss = UEL Group Stage, a first loss but then two wins = UEL Group Group Stage, a first loss then a win but then a second loss = UECL Group Stage, two losses then a win = UECL Group Stage, three losses = eliminated with no further European football.

I've included "UEFA Access List" as a possible article because it is the application that is used to base the qualifying scheme on. Alternatively, an article for this current UEFA Access List 2021–24 cycle could be written to detail the current UEFA club competition pyramid and add subsequent ones when the format changes.

The following diagram easily lays out the interconnectedness of the three UEFA club competitions for 2021–24: https://kassiesa.net/uefa/files/2021-24-uefa-club-competitions-scheme.png

Thanks for reading my thoughts. I am way too inexperienced to write an article myself so if this seems like a feasible idea I am passing the task on to somebody else. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, my view is this is potentially a pretty big task (although as you said much of the information is in UEFA Coefficients, and some relevant stuff is in each of the competition overview articles) and is not really worthwhile at this stage when the new Champions League format comes into effect in the season after next. It is not a bad idea but might as well wait until then to outline the new system, whatever form it takes exactly (or has that already been finalised? I don't know, I would guess there are some basics laid down but details to be decided) and that will get a lot more page views and be useful to readers as it is something they will also not be familiar with. Crowsus (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The outline of the new format has been finalised but still lack the details. We know that teams play eight instead of six groups games and we know how the four extra places will be filled in the UCL. Not so much the UEL or UECL. Likewise, not so much information yet on the 2024–27 access list. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. My one issue is that we don’t make articles because they are “interesting to [make]”, we make them because they are notable. Otherwise, a good idea!Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the interest of readers to a degree relates to notability, no? When I say that it "would be interesting to compile information [towards a single article on the Club Competition system" I am putting forward my argument on why I believe it to be notable explained in the wider post. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league - add IFFHS ranking

At infobox for national teams we have info about "best place at ranking FIFA in hitory" or "current ranking FIFA". What do you think to add IFFHS ranking to infobox about leagues then? I think that info could be info ueful for editors if we analyse at Afd football players with purely club achivements and for now useful for readers becasue of unfortunetly only IFFHS has ranking of leagues from lobal perspective. FIFA does not have yet. I ask to every user kept feedback here, or what do you think to we make consensus via !voting? I think that small information would not be bad and better is to add than than not. Cheers! Dawid2009 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point. What authority does IFFHS have? Nehme1499 12:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Nehme. GiantSnowman 07:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 Super League Greece 2 fixtures

Does anybody know of these have been released yet - and if not, when they will? The season is meant to start in 2 weeks... GiantSnowman 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Greek Wikipedia article, the season will start in October. On an off note, shouldn't Super League Greece 2 be moved to Super League 2 (Greece)? Nehme1499 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A friendly match is missing

The match was Cosmos 1-3 Gremio (BRA) (Sunday, August 30, 1981 - at the Giants Stadium). I have the promotional poster, if needed. The match was nominated "SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL MATCH". Gremio was the Brazilian League Champion of the 1981 season. The midfield Paulo Isidoro was nominated the best player in Brazil at that year. This championship leads the club to became the 1983's South American and World Champion (called "Intercontinental Cup" at that time).

Gremio (Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense, founded in 1903) is one of Brazil's main teams, having the biggest crowd in the southern Brasil. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%AAmio_Foot-Ball_Porto_Alegrense

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, so I don't want to mess it up. It would be nice If somebody else here can do it... If anyone wants more information, write me, please. Thanks Carlos Moll (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Carlos Moll, that game is listed here: 1981_New_York_Cosmos_season#Friendlies. However, individual games generally don't get their own articles unless they are covered by multiple reliable sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues with MLS brackets

Hello. There is an issue with the current tournament brackets used in MLS pages, such as {{12TeamBracket-MLS}}. The background colors used cause an accessibility issue. Specifically, neither the red nor the blue background is WCAG AAA compatible for standard blue links and purple visited links. Per MOS:COLOR, we should be meeting the AAA standard whenever possible. It is in my opinion that the colors are largely unnecessary, and we should be using the standard grey background that is used for every other team bracket, such as {{8TeamBracket}}. Nonetheless, the accessibility issue should be addressed. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are not AAA-compliant, it's better to use the standard grey bg. Nehme1499 12:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there any reason behind the specific red and blue backgrounds, or is it just done for contrast reasons? Spike 'em (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Democratic and Republican? ;) -- SuperJew (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I did wonder if it was that simple! There is a |flip= parameter which switches the 2 conferences, but not the colours, which would indicate that the colouring is purely decorative. Spike 'em (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
They're on the borderline and can be made compliant by lightening the colours a bit - i.e. use #E3F3FC for the light blue and #FFE5EC for the pink. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've amended the template above (using slightly different colours than suggested here), but are there more MLS tempalates? I see there is an NBA version that uses similar light blue / pink that could do with being changed too. Spike 'em (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player

The template has been in the process of merging with Template:Football squad player since February 2020. I don't know what the technical limitations are, but is the merge that complicated to complete? Nehme1499 12:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edits that were required as a result of the merger discussion have been made. However, I'm not sure what the best approach to the next step is – redirect {{Football squad player2}} to the original or get a bot to replace it? Cheers, Number 57 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
All the articles that use {{Fs player2}} don't display the correct table. See Al Hilal SFC and Toronto FC, for example. Nehme1499 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
In that case a bot run will be needed to both replace the template, add fs start/mid/end as appropriate and delete the extraneous table coding. Number 57 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the editor who was blocking this work being completed was indeff'd in May this year, so hopefully progress can be made. Number 57 18:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:FC Barcelona

Perhaps some members of FOOTY could take a look at Talk:FC Barcelona#DEBATE ON A MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF FC BARCELONA? The OP apparently wanted to debate this, but then started using socks and posting replies in support when others didn't respond. The OP might also be other socks editing the various FC Barcelona articles as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have engaged with it. I think it highlights a wider problem with WikiProject Football where we write an article about a football team but almost always refer to them in the header as a (semi-)professional "football club", failing to distinguish them from the wider incorporated club of which it may only be one section. In my opinion, even though the full name of Manchester United's men's team is branded "Manchester United Football Club", and even though the full name of Manchester United's women's team is branded "Manchester United Women Football Club", both should then still be referred to as a professional, association football team. The wikilink article that "football club" is always linked to, already possesses the title "football team" and already makes the same distinction between the two in its detail so it seems so bizarre to me that the text is always changed to "football club:". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not that I think what the OP was proposing in that discussion was something not worthy of discussion. The problem was that the OP appears to have one or more different accounts to try and circumvent their primary account being blocked and then commented in the discussion in a WP:ILLEGIT manner. If some FOOTY members feel the subject is worth discussing and want to act on it, then that's fine. The main concern was that the OP would try to implement such a change (possibly using another SOCK) by claiming a consensus for it was established on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I've struck out the comment from the confirmed sock, anything further from new accounts needs to be treated with care / scepticism. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Jogurney/Association football BLP cleanup

As discussed a few weeks ago, I've been building out this list to track GNG sourcing efforts for football biographies that are highly likely to meet the GNG (e.g., 100+ matches in La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A or Ligue 1), but are currently poorly sourced. I'm also improving sourcing on the listed articles as I have time, but I wanted to share with the group so interested editors can join the effort. Ideally, I would like to move this list to a Football Project page, and await advice on when and where to do that. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norwich City F.C.

I have nominated Norwich City F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Clean sheet Juventus v Spezia

Hello. Who gets it? Wojciech Szczęsny, who played from first minute, or Mattia Perin, who replaced the former in the first half because of injury? Island92 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say - although, for that matter, what does it matter? WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I refer to this section.--Island92 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
What does the source used to reference that section say? Spike 'em (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Technically, if neither goalkeeper conceded a goal then they both kept a clean sheet. That's usually how it would get recorded but clean sheets aren't as easy to source as goals (obviously). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I would say the table on 2022–23 Juventus F.C. season#Clean sheets isn't needed. It's not sourced, and don't see what encyclopedic value it adds, as it doesn't look to be easily sourceable, as sources aren't clear which of those 2 goalkeepers got awarded a clean sheet yesterday. Pointless table that will probably only ever have 2 or 3 rows. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
IIRC, cleansheets are only recorded for goalkeepers who played a full match? Depends on who's checking. Some league would credit both, fantasy usually credits only if keeper played over 60 minutes, Opta credit only for full match --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Added data for both.--Island92 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It is unsourced. I would remove it. Nehme1499 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
So now the number of clean sheets in the table is different to what happened in the real world. Utter nonsense : find a source otherwise the table will be deleted. Spike 'em (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Source added.--Island92 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The source you added does not say anything about clean sheets. I've removed the table. Nehme1499 15:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
For which reason is the clean sheet table unsourced? Just look at the result matches in the table and you get to know where Juventus did not concede goals.--Island92 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The source for the result indicates if Juventus did not concede a goal. It does not indicate the goalkeeper statistic of "clean sheet". That's why it is unsourced. – Elisson • T • C • 15:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Added source for Clean sheets.--Island92 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, as per multiple discussions about it, most recently here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok.--Island92 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yet another season article with a dazzling array of tables and literally two sentences of actual prose, I note..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ferdinando Del Sole

Juventus have loaned him for the 30034802nd time. On Twitter, Juventus U23 have announced that the deal would be until 2024 but FIFA's rules prevent pluriennial loans. What do I do? Dr Salvus 17:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the question? I don't see an issue. Regardless of if the loan is until 2024,2023, or even if it were just until next month, it would just say "2022- " inthe infobox, since we don't put the end year until its concluded. RedPatch (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Right. Silly me... Dr Salvus 21:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:English Football League players

Is there any reason why Category:English Football League players isn't divided into Category:EFL Championship players, Category:EFL League One players and Category:EFL League Two players? Every time I go to add one of the latter three categories for a player, I forget that those categories don't exist (I now transformed them into redirects). The EFL category itself has over 27,000 entries anyway, so dividing it into Championship, League One and League Two make sense. Nehme1499 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No it does not - because then you will have 3 categories instead of 1 on many player articles. GiantSnowman 20:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how would you resolve the categorisation of the century of league divisions before that setup? Crowsus (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@GS Most players wouldn't have all three categories. If someone, for instance, only played in League One, he wouldn't have the Championship and League Two categories. Idk, it doesn't seem so practical to me to have tier 2, tier 3 and tier 4 league players merged together. Nehme1499 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
No, lots of players would have all three, as many players play in all 4 divisions of English football over the course of their career - and more besides, given the historical leagues that Crowsus mentions. GiantSnowman 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure (haven't exhaustively checked) but I am reasonably certain that Nicky Southall played in all of the following: Division Four and Division Three (pre-1992), Division One and Division Two (between 1992 and 2004), Championship, League One and League Two (post-2004). Would he require seven different "divisions played in" categories.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I suppose we could theoretically have categories called things like Category:EFL Championship and predecessors players but then how would be treat players who played in Division One prior to 1992, because there's no equivalent to that in the present structure? Would we have Category:Football League Division One (1888-1992) players, which wouldn't be consistent with the others at all.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's also applicable to many other players in other countries, who may play across the various tiers. Other countries all have various categories for their various leagues, do they not? It's inconsistent for England to be unique in combining leagues. Either should be a unique category for each league for consistency or perhaps we change categories to "Players who played XYZ domestic league football" RedPatch (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Or maybe separate based on tiers rather than the specific division name, so that it even works with historical leagues. Nehme1499 09:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think based on tiers can confuse the average user (and some editors too, me included). League name is the easiest. And for historical can have a separate cat. --SuperJew (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
So do we create separate categories for the six divisions of the EFL between 1888 and 1992, the three divisions of the EFL between 1992 and 2004, and the three (differently named) divisions of the EFL since 2004? So twelve different categories? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
whos the lucky guy that has to go through 30,000 pages to see what leagues every single player played inMuur (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends

Unsure why we have some text on that category where we should only include entries of male footballers. An IP has decided to run through some articles and added the category to the articles about female footballers who are wives/girlfriends but with another fellow footballer (e.g. here).

There are many possible relationships between two people yet per the text on the category they are supposed to be omitted. Did we had an agreement on settling on including just articles of people who are with male footballers only? -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I see no reason why female partners should not be included. GiantSnowman 21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I have started a conversation at the talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that category has survived being nominated for deletion NINE times - some sort of record.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Just saw this, had already nominated the association football related category for discussion here (before seeing this thread). Feel free to contribute there too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that's interesting - I only just noticed that the cat you have nominated is Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends. We also have Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends. Why do we have both? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The latter seems to be a parent category, also including Gaelic football and rugby. All those known as "footballers" I suppose, but excluding American football. Seems a bit silly really.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just want to add something here I mentioned in my !vote at the deletion discussion. Namely that if someone is only known for being an athlete's wife/girlfriend, they aren't actually notable enough for an article per WP:NOTINHERITED. Delete those articles and then you've got some people already famous for other things, making this obviously a non-defining category. Plus we shouldn't really be using the stupidity and sexism of the British tabloid press to define anyone. oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Isn’t categorising someone as a WAG just demeaning and belonging to a past era. It’s sexist, tacky and not something that someone should be defined as in 2022.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily true, in the English press (and other countries) some persons could definitely be noteable primarily through association with a footballer. Like I'm sure someone could write up an article for Georgina Rodriguez and it would pass GNG. And I don't think it's necessarily sexist, even though it often is.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at the CFD page. GiantSnowman 16:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

Should Lesley Lloyd exist there is plenty of third person sources that suggest Lloyd played in the 1971 WFA Cup Final Women's FA Cup final: The evolution of women's football - BBC Sport Lesley Lloyd: ‘It’s an honour to have won the first Women’s FA Cup’ | Women's FA Cup | The Guardian Lesley Lloyd Reflects on Being the First Woman to Lift the FA Cup - Our Game Magazine Dwanyewest (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, probably meets GNG. GiantSnowman 07:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a comfortable pass imho Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Moussa N'Daw

Hi all, can I have a second opinion on this please? The career stats table has been continuously edit warred on and off. I have already done two reverts as the content is unsourced but I am no longer allowed to revert because of WP:3RR. I note that Soccerway has been added for N'Daw but there is no mention of any career stats! I am going to raise an ANI against User:مهدي جزائري for their behaviour today anyway but was wondering if someone experienced with Arabic football might be able to assist. Are the stats legit? Is there actually a source out there? If not, then I think they should be removed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree they should be removed unless adequately sourced. GiantSnowman 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it even worth making an article?

Should Sue Whyatt, Elaine Badrock and Janet Bagguley have articles? There are articles proving that the did play in England's first official women's national team match, see for yourselves Macclesfield's original Lioness celebrates England's Euro triumph | InYourArea News, Meet the women who paved the way for England's footballers to become World Cup stars (inews.co.uk),Original Lionesses: 'We had it rough, we had to really fight' - BBC News, 40 years ago today: Scotland 2-3 England - SheKicks Dwanyewest (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done any comprehensive newspaper searches yet but I'm mostly getting passing mentions and brief quotes from these footballers and not any extensive independent coverage. Might I suggest creating them as redirects to List of England women's international footballers for now as they are plausible search terms? In fact, I'll do this myself for now. Should significant online or offline coverage be found, the redirects can then be replaced with a full article. Due to WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, it isn't enough just to be part of a team to have an article. The individual footballer would need to have been subject to specific media coverage focusing on them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a massive problem with gender bias on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there are a lot of bad faith editors aiming to delete as many sport biographies as they can so it is difficult for me to recommend you creating those articles right now.--EchetusXe 10:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if that first match itself could be the subject of an article, there certainly seems to be enough reliable independent coverage about that, even if it is almost all contemporary. There is an equivalent article for the first men's match. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the first match would be a worthwhile stand-alone article. It's a landmark game and has significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Some assistance would be nice

I think UEFA Women's Euro 2001 Final should be merged or redirected into UEFA Women's Euro 2001 final what are other people's thoughts maybe it should be discussed at Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2001 final Dwanyewest (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect. Doesn't need a discussion or a merge tag for that. oknazevad (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Juventus Next Gen players who played with the old team's name

I've used Efn notes (with Greek letters, not to create confusion with the stats table reflist) to show to the reader that the team had changed name during his Juventus Next Gen stay. For istance, see here. Should I do the same for the players who were of Juventus Next Gen with the old name? Dr Salvus 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The players who were of Juventus Next Gen with the old name: what do you mean? Nehme1499 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The players who had played for the club prior to the August 2022 renaming. Dr Salvus 18:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Leave them alone. After the page move there should be a redirect, so the text displayed will show the name of the team when they played for it. Spike 'em (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree, old name is fine. Also, can we go more than 3 days on here without a new thread about Juventus- there seems to be an overkill of discussions here about their articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
making juve u23 non notable and deleting all their pages would help with that. its a youth team after all.Muur (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn't, though. Nehme1499 21:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
We should use the historically accurate name - so if they played for the club only when it was 'Juventus U23' then display that name. GiantSnowman 10:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with GS. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Double link in table

Hello. Should clubs be double-linked in season article transfer sections when a club sells/buys two players from/to the same club? For example, 2022–23 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season, where PSG has sold three players to Eupen. Should Eupen be linked three times? Also, rather minor detail, but should we also merge the club box if two of the same clubs are right next to each other? For example 2022–23 Montpellier HSC season with Troyes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't merge, as I think it creates accessibility problems for reader devices (?). Regarding the double link, I'm indifferent. Nehme1499 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Fabrizio Romano

Do we need to discuss Fabrizio Romano here? Or is Dhjeekw the only user who needs a primer?

Anyway, here's my take:

  • If Fab mentions a player or manager, the project should keep a careful eye on the article because it will attract users who want to be the first to make the edit.
  • Fab has good sources and he is way more reliable than, say, the tabloids and Sky Sports. I'm not aware of him ever being wrong about a potential transfer.
  • That said, he'll tweet things at different stages of transfer negotiations, which I think confuses non-regular Wikipedians. "Talks ongoing", "deal agreed", "announcement soon" and his trademark "here we go" are all incorrectly interpreted as "the transfer is complete". Only "official and announced" is the one that matters for our purposes.

Anyway, I think if Fabrizio is tweeting, we should be aware of edits we need to make, but need to pay close attention to how he words his tweets since he'll literally tweet every step of a transfer. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears Dhjeekw has been blocked indefinitely. Paul W (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how Romano gets his information, we should wait until things are officially announced. Dhjeekw has been indeffed for edit warring and treating these speculative sources as facts, so I'd recommend nobody else does the same. Joseph2302 (talk)
Indeed. As I explained to Dhjeekw shortly before they were indeffed, Fabrizio Romano (or any other gossip-monger) isn't a reliable source for a transfer being complete. Ever. The only reliable sources for an ongoing transfer being complete are the clubs concerned. And once it has been officially announced as complete, there's no need to use gossip sites, whether it's Romano or "Sky Sports understands" or any other. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Struway2 Oh, I don't disagree at all. Always go for the official channels, even when the tweet is "confirmed and announced." But I do think his tweets are useful for:
(1) Knowing which articles will require attention
(2) Anticipating edits that'll need to be made in the near future, more so than other outlets, since he's detailed about the stage of negotiations and timing.
And I agree that his tweets are never WP:RS. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Have to say this is the first time I have ever heard of the bloke. Clearly I am very out of touch...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I competletly agree with Adeletron. Dr Salvus 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Troubling AfD

I find the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football at the 2001 Maccabiah Games to be quite troubling. 2603:7000:2143:8500:401A:1701:C4F5:B270 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add your thoughts at the AfD page; as I believe you have already done; the discussion will take place there. As you have drawn this project's attention to that discussion other editors may also have thoughts to add. But, please be careful in respect of WP:Canvas. Eagleash (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on bios

An RFC on bios is being held. Which might affect Football personnel bios. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Help with a disruptive editor

User Nzs9 is being disruptive, keeping on adding the season's fixtures to the 2022–23 A-League Men season page. This issue was brought up on the talk page, and despite this they ignore and keep adding it, and even calling other editors disruptive for restoring to stable version. Could I get some guidance from some editors with more experience before I get to 3RR? Thank you --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed it for now. Didn't we have a consensus about that to not include fixtures on a season article? (this is what i found) Not sure if we should discuss it now and invite all participants of the discussion at the A-League article. Kante4 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You're the one being disruptive Nzs9 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
As can be seen from Nzs9's responses, they're not interested in communication or in working together. They're last edits continue to not accept other users' input (adding information based on transfermarkt and Facebook, with this information being irrelevant anyway even if true at the level they claim). How can I get help with this user? Admin interference? --SuperJew (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything wrong, i'm trying to work together with you, however you keep on shutting me down. Nzs9 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I have added a section at the page's talk page regarding the disruptive editing of another issue by this user. I would appreciate help as the user is not listening. --SuperJew (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I discovered that @FormalDude: had been appointed as a mentor of Nzs9, inheriting this from Asartea who has retired from mentoring. I note that Nzs9 is also choosing not to engage constructively on the mentor's talk page either. I think some further action is required from editors who are not at or near 3RR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
You need to take accountability that you weren't acting constuctively on that page in the first place - you're trying to get me in trouble instead of working with me to find a solution Nzs9 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No one is trying to get you into trouble. We are trying to build an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable facts. If you aren't discussing contstructively, that is problematic. --SuperJew (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for name change of La Liga

From La Liga to LaLiga. On the league's official website and all social media channels, there is no space between La and Liga nor is there one in the league's crest. Further, reputable Spanish language media outlets like Marca and Mediaset use LaLiga and not La Liga and when both Mediapro and ESPN announced their rights deals recently for Spain and the USA respectively, LaLiga was used in the press release. ESPN uses LaLiga throughout their television coverage and website of the league as did EA Sports (who is the league's official partner) when announcing the league's player of the season and team of the season for 2021–22. Rupert1904 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RM for how to initiate a move request -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks will do that then. I was going to move the page but then figured I should raise here first. Rupert1904 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The important thing here is what independent, reliable English language sources use, not necessarily what the league / related parties or Spanish sources use. (see WP:NAMECHANGES). Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is just a stylistic choice, like a lower case "a" in "adidas". – PeeJay 14:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree, doesn't seem like we need to change this. I'm more interested in if we should be renaming the women's event to La Liga F, as that's what some sources seem to be calling it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Below are English language sources using LaLiga - where the league has been in the news recently either through rights deal or otherwise. I believe that La Liga has been a longly used misnomer in English speaking world and that the league is actively trying to fix that belief. Here's an article that even says the official name of the league is LaLiga [1]... ESPN: ESPN and LaLiga Reach Historic Rights Agreement Bringing Top-Rated Soccer League to Millions More Fans Across the U.S., Evening Standard: LaLiga president Javier Tebas to report Premier League to UEFA for causing ‘transfer inflation’, Sports Pro: LaLiga renews FTA rights deal with Mediapro, Sports Business Journal: Mediaset To Offer LaLiga, Champions League In Spain, Digital TV Europe: Sports rights: LaLiga signs FTA deal with ITV; OneFootball bags Serie A for UK and Ireland, Sports Pro: Viaplay acquires Premier Sports in UK£30m deal to expand UK offering. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
And have you looked for any still using "La Liga" to compare numbers? I'd discount anything that is just a rehashed press release, which some of those sources seem to be, in favour of seeing how routinue coverage of the competition is reported. The Evening Standard one above uses both "La Liga" and "LaLiga" in the body of the article, and their index page for the competion is La Liga. The BBC use "La Liga", for example, as do The Guardian and The Times in the UK. Spike 'em (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Jack Watson (Scottish footballer)

Those interested in World War II and who may have access to published sources are directed to the talk page of this article. The former player inter alia for Tranmere Rovers - full name John George Watson - is in the unusual position of being known to have been killed in 1944 but have no linked citation with a CWGC listed casualty and no exact death date. The CWGC lists four men of that exact name of whom three died in 1944, including an army Captain attached to a Scottish regiment. It would be a boon in someone could investigate with newspaper obituaries or - in the case of the latter - The Times List of Fallen Officers that ran alongside the paper's obituary pages during the war.Cloptonson (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It is the army captain. Scroll down to last para of this from Liverpool Echo, 26 Sep 1944 p2, which reads "I regret to add that news also reaches me this morning of the death from wounds in Italy of Captain J. G. Watson, the former Tranmere Rovers and South Liverpool player, son of the Rev. and Mrs. J. Elder Watson. It is only a few weeks since I had a very cheery letter from him recounting his football experiences with the Forces." I've also posted this at the article talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Good find. Crowsus (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Struway2 - Thank you. That is a valuable 'missing link' uncovered.Cloptonson (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on 2023 AFC U-20 Asian Cup qualification page regarding how Arabic surnames should be sorted in the goalscorers list

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion on the 2023 AFC U-20 Asian Cup qualification page regarding how the Arabic surnames should be sorted in the goalscorers list. Currently only two people are taking part in the dicussion and thus it has been very hard to reach a consensus. Can a few more people also please look into this, so that a consensus can be reached. Here is the summary of the disucssion -

  1. The disucssion is regarding which of the two Arabic names should come before the other. To take an example, imagine two names 'Foo Al-Foo' and 'Foo Boo'. I argue that the order of sorting should take into account the 'Al' and thus the first name becomes Foo Alfoo whose surname starts with 'A', and comes before 'B' which is the starting letter of the surname of Foo Boo.
  2. @HiddenFace101 On the other hand argues that the 'Al' in the Arabic names are just honorifics (as it is translated to 'the') and should be ignored when talking about the surname. Thus according to this logic 'Foo Al-Foo' becomes 'Foo Foo' which would come after 'Foo Boo' in order.
  3. He has also given an example that in the name 'King Charles III' when being sorted the sorting would usually be done on 'Charles' and not 'King', and thus a similar thing should be done for the names starting with 'Al'.
  4. I on the other hand have referenced the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Collation in alphabetical order which states 'For alphabetization, the definite article "al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, etc.) should not be ignored. Example: Al-Qaeda should be alphabetized as "Al-Qaeda", not "Qaeda".' The reference also further redirects to WP:NAMESORT which says similar stuff about the Arabic names.

Can some more people also get in this discussion to resolve it? Thanks. Anbans 586 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Portobello FC

I assume this club is not notable enough for an article, but I wanted to check here before I (or someone else) takes it to AfD. I would say it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG but not sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. GiantSnowman 07:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The spelling of Vitaliy Mykolenko's surname

I have started a discussion on Talk:Everton F.C. about the spelling of Mykolenko's first name. Depending on some external links and two Wikipedians, one says the last letter is a y and another says it is the i. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

worth a RM of the player article, and then we use whatever spelling we end up with. GiantSnowman 07:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree we should do a RM on the player. Ukraine and Russia sometimes transliterate names slightly differently (like Kyiv and Kiev), so I imagine one of the names is the Ukranian-style transliteration of his name, and one is the Russian-style transliteration of his name. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I have started a move discussion on the talk page in line with the above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Article title for Swiss System phases of UEFA competitions

Starting from 2024, UCL, UEL, UECL and (most likely) UYL won't have a group stage but will use the Swiss System to replace groups. What's the most appropriate name to substute 2024–25 UEFA Champions League group stage? Dr Salvus 17:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't have an article for 2024–25 UEFA Champions League group stage, though. We'll decide the appopriate name once UEFA announces it. Nehme1499 17:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, an article will not be needed for quite a while. However, it could still be considered a "group stage", though with just one, large group, so the title might not need to be changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I so agree. Dr Salvus 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Any admins about...

... who want to block the latest disruptive IP who continues to add incorrect information to Newcastle United player articles. -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

They're already range-blocked for 3 months at their previous ISP, and it's taken them a few days to find a new one, so it's block evasion as well as disruption. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I thought there was a range block before so 100% agree in block evading as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Blocked the /64 for a month, no doubt they'll be back. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Czechia

Hi all. As most of you probably don't know, I'm a freelance TV producer and I'm currently working for UEFA on coverage of the Nations League. The production company I work for has just had an email through from UEFA confirming that Czech officials have requested that, from today, their country be referred to as Czechia in English. This hasn't been updated on the UEFA website yet as far as I can see, but it will be reflected in the world feed broadcast of tomorrow's match between Czechia and Portugal, and in the highlights programmes we produce after the fact. Just letting you know in advance. – PeeJay 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm actually a fan of the Czechia name, and hope it catches on. Same with Turkiye.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not so much of a fan of Turkiye. They can call themselves whatever they want in their own language, which is what Turkiye is, but in English it should still be Turkey. Just my opinion. Anyway, the UEFA website has now been updated (see here). – PeeJay 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
At which point do we seek to move Czech Republic articles to Czechia articles? I don't think UEFA making it official is quite enough, there are still a lot of independent sources who don't use Czechia (although, the trend is definitely moving away from Czech Republic). However, what happens with Czech Republic national football team results (2020–present) for example? It's not like Samoa or North Macedonia where there is a clearly defined point that the name changed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the country itself asked to be known as Czechia (at least in the short form) way back in 2016. Not sure why it's taken them this long to make the same change in the sporting arena. – PeeJay 17:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been six failed move discussions for Czechia on Talk:Czech Republic, we should not be renaming football articles unless there is a consensus to move the main country article as well. Same applies with Turkey/Türkiye. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this move by the Czech FA today will encourage some movement in reliable sources. – PeeJay 18:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is really annoying because we can't retrospectively change everything from 2016 to today. In English, they have been known as the Czech Republic since Czechoslovakia split up. We could use today as it is the point that UEFA will start calling them Czechia but will the BBC for example or ESPN etc. I dare say at some point we will need an RfC to sort it out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
In ice hockey, the team has been going by Czechia for a few years now in many tournaments, Wikipedia still keeps the name of Czech Republic, due to the continued failed RM changes at the page of the actual country. So I doubt the football team going by Czechia will change anything. Some tournament pages have them as Czechia such as 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships as that is what they used, but the main Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team page still uses CR. I expect football articles to be the same. RedPatch (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
As long as the article of Czech Republic doesn't get renamed into Czechia, we shouldn't even be thinking of moving any sports-related articles. Once the main article is renamed, all other can (should) be moved accordingly. (Btw, I'm also a fan of Czechia. Not so much of Türkiye). Nehme1499 19:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I like it too, but I recall a few years ago I used that term in an article (I think it was on a map, to save room as much as anything else) and got reverted quite aggressively by someone who was clearly patrolling the whole site for wild and dangerous unauthorised Czechia-ing. Crowsus (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@PeeJay: If you want to change the article title please open a WP:RM. Given the country's article has failed multiple times to be moved to Czechia, there should be consensus before retitling the national team article. Just as with Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast and Türkiye/Turkey, we do not necessarily use the "official" name the national teams use. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

See Name of the Czech Republic. The name 'Czechia' dates from way before 2016. Despite the formalizations of its 'recognition', this is indeed more of a gradual change in vocabulary than one linked to a clearly defined point, and if the trend continues, the name will gain usage even in retrospective reference to aspects and periods when it was unusual or nonexistent. By the way, there is at least one precedent where the articles on the country and the national team are using different names: "East Timor" and "Timor-Leste national football team". --Theurgist (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Also Chinese Taipei national football team and Taiwan? --SuperJew (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I would say Taiwan/Chinese Taipei and French Polynesia/Tahiti are special cases, as these are not discrepancies of how the the name is written in English, but rather entirely different names the national teams have chosen/were forced to be represented under. As for East Timor, the national team article could probably be moved, the only other discrepancies are Congo and DR Congo. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles for specific season/division combinations

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force#Articles for specific season/division combinations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Lost Lionesses

Should the likes of Dot Cassell, Janice Barton, Carol Ann Wilson who participated 1971 Women's World Cup be recognised as England internationals even though it is not recognised by the The Football Association. Or should an article be called The Lost Lionesses be created instead if so there are some soures that can be used. “A dream come true”: Lost Lioness Chris Lockwood on her… - The Face , Lost Lionesses' Proud Of New Generation Of Footballers | HuffPost UK Life (huffingtonpost.co.uk) , The Lost Lionesses: 'It's taken 50 years to feel valued' (telegraph.co.uk), The lost lionesses (bbc.co.uk), The Lost Lionesses: Carol Wilson on playing in the 1971 Women’s World Cup Dwanyewest (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd say yes, or make a subcategory for them. Whatever consensus decides.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Ortizesp (talk) and User:Bring back Daz Sampson maybe the discussion should take place at Talk:List of England women's international footballers. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

spielverlagerung.de

I'm trying to expand Formation (association football) without just citing Inverting the Pyramid 200 times, and since apparently there's been no discussion of spielverlagerung as a source anywhere I'm bringing it up here to have something to point to. It was founded by someone who now coaches as Leeds and the current editor has a history in media/journalism. I know it calls itself a blog, but it's one of the preeminent tactics sites in the world and has sent people into coaching/had coaches write for it. Would it be considered reliable for that purpose? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Some agreement needed...

... on Talk: Sam Kerr so I can make sure I don't get into the 3RR trap. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Should this French article exist?

Does anyone think List of foreign Division 1 Féminine players should exist? I think there are enough foreign players to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are enough sources, and the topic is notable, why not? Nehme1499 23:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Conor Gallagher

Hi all - I have tried to add a continental column to his stats table but User:GiantSnowman keeps reverting me saying this is a bold edit. Gallagher has already made an appearance in the Champions League this season. GiantSnowman believes that this is not a standard column and that I am going against precedent and consensus. I would like to hear others opinions on this. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

One appearance - or even a handful of appearances - in just one season does not merit an entirely new column. If he plays continental football again next season we can introduce it. For now it is fine in the 'other'. GiantSnowman 19:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a lame thing to get into an edit-war over, anyway. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - but Rupert was repeatedly invited to discuss on the article talk page, which he refused to do. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Continent level is a standard column and should be included as such and not "other". "Other" column is for tournaments which aren't in the standard columns (such as the FA Shield). --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not standard. It applies only to a small minority of players. GiantSnowman 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SJ, I consider Continental to be one of the standard columns if there are appearances in it. Obviously if they've never appeared in a continental competition, then it could be omitted, but I don't usually throw continental appearances in an Other column. To me those are for the more obscure tournaments. (epecially since he has many Chelsea rows, so those would be rightful zeros rather than just dashes). RedPatch (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
since it appears in the MoS, it's standard. --SuperJew (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It is standard per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. If the player made at least one continental appearance, the "Continental" column should be included. Nehme1499 07:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Same. I would include it. Kante4 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
He's appeared in Continental football therefore deserves a Continental column. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd also support including it. I think most people view the "other" column as referring to what could charitably be called "lesser" competitions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're all wrong, but I will respect the consensus and restore the column. GiantSnowman 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

i also agree with the other users.Muur (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-promotional article

Hi folks. If anyone feels like doing some cleaning-up: John Maisano is a bit messy and self-promotional. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the prose. Nehme1499 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Very good! Thanks a lot. I trimmed the "personal life" section a little. I think the article is fine now. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that the lead sentence should say "soccer" instead of football, to avoid confusion with Australian football which is a different type to what this project's about. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
whyd you remove the stuff abotu him being on the galdiator tv show? surely that is notable and was sourced.Muur (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't perform the removal but I have an idea why: the claim was sourced to IMDb which is mostly unreliable. See WP:IMDB. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Spot on, Robby. Nehme1499 11:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Mladen Krstajić‎

Could anyone have a look at Mladen Krstajić‎? Several IPs (probably one person) insist on putting all the international caps together like this. As far as I know, every nation team should be listed as separate entry or has this changed? --Jaellee (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Afaik all national teams which inherit the records of the previous nations should be merged together, under the name of the most recent nation and with a hatnote explaining the name change. So, in Krstajić‎'s case, he would only have "Serbia" with an {{efn}} note saying something like "Serbia inherited Serbia and Montenegro's record in 2006, which in turn inherited FR Yugoslavia's record in 2003". Nehme1499 20:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro didn't inherit FR Yugoslavia's record. In 2003, FR Yugoslavia stopped being a federal republic and became a political union so it changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro. At that point, the national team didn't actually change. Personally, I see no issue in having Serbia and Montengro and Serbia or USSR and Russia, whoever it may be, in the infobox. It's not wrong and it's not difficult to work out a player's total number of caps/goals either. In Krstajić's case though, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro should really be merged because it is the same team with a note to say about the name change. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro didn't inherit FR Yugoslavia's record: according to Serbia and Montenegro national football team, both FIFA and UEFA did consider Serbia and Montenegro to be the direct and sole successor to Yugoslavia and thus entitled to claim and use the history and records of the various Yugoslav national teams (my emphasis). Nehme1499 21:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Serbia and Montenegro isn't the direct successor to the various Yugoslav national teams. What I'm saying is that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which broke up in 1992) is not the same as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. So, in 2003 Serbia and Montenegro didn't inherit anything it didn't already have. The 2003 change was more akin to Macedonia's change to North Macedonia in 2019 than it was to the break up SFR Yugoslavia in 1992. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Succesor≠inheritor. They didn’t inherit anything. The second sentence in that Wikipedia article is actually a false Wikipedia synthesis not supported by the sources. Tvx1 12:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
See FIFA's 2014 World Cup Statistical Kit (p. 58): Serbia was called Yugoslavia before February 2003 then Serbia and Montenegro until 2006. Played in inaugural FWC in 1930 (no preliminary competition)... FIFA counts Yugoslavia's record as Serbia's. Nehme1499 12:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you, there should be only one line under NT - Serbia, since he only played for one federation that changed names several times. Maybe put in a note.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, where the records are merged, there must be a note to explain why they have been merged. It's not wrong to have a Serbia row and separate Serbia and Montenegro row though because they are different. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yugoslavia --> S&M --> Serbia are all the same, as outlined in the FIFA kit I provided above. Nehme1499 15:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This same issue on that very page was discussed here in November 2020. I agree one line with a note is ideal. RedPatch (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I would go by whether we have separate a article for the national team. In this case, we have separate articles for Yugoslavia (1920–1992), FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro and Serbia. This also reflects the category structure for international players. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Player nationality in intro

"Raheem Shaquille Sterling MBE (born 8 December 1994) is an English professional footballer who plays as a winger and attacking midfielder for Premier League club Chelsea and the England national team."

How come Sterling is listed as an English footballer but many other dual national players are just listed as a professional footballer without including the nationality? Which should it be? I tried to find the old discussions on this but was unsuccessful, if someone can link them. TonyStarks (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the FOOTY consensus is to list a nationality in first sentence if a player has only ever represented one nation (at any level), but this could be me mis-remembering a past discussion. As he has never represented Jamaica, Sterling is listed as English. Listing him as such would seem to be covered by MOS:FIRSTBIO as he is notable for being an England international. Spike 'em (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
And as to previous discussions, I have found this which directly discussed Sterling. Spike 'em (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Or take your pick from this this list Spike 'em (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
To list a nationality in first sentence if a player has only ever represented one nation (at any level) is what I would prefer to do, but is not the current modus operandi I think. If I'm not mistaken there is no black-and-white rule. If the player was born in country A, moved to B aged 1 and played for B's national team they would have B's country in the lead. If they were born in A and played for B without ever moving there, the nationality is generally omitted. There is quite a bit of gray area, though, so I don't think we will ever have a definitive consensus on this. Nehme1499 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that there are far too many possible exceptions / sliding-scales to be able to fully codify a solution and there will undoubtedly be conflicting resolutions for seemingly similar cases!! Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. In a similar vain, Riyad Mahrez is only notable for being an Algeria international but listed as "professional footballer" as opposed to being Algerian. Although he's born in France, he also never played for France and is probably the most famous Algerian person out there .. yet his intro omits the fact that he's Algerian. TonyStarks (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It does seem to have a 'loose' consensus as outlined above; taking Wilfried Zaha as an example; born elsewhere, like Sterling and grew up in England, learnt his trade in England and represented the national team. However, unlike Sterling he subsequently chose to play for the country of his birth (Ivory Coast). In these circumstances, nationality cannot be precisely defined, is therefore omitted from the lead and article content will clarify the situation. There are a number of articles / players with similar 'issues'.Eagleash (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The consensus I always believed was to omit nationality if they were born one place and represented another and to add it as a sentence later in the lead (Born in X, he represents Y). The only exceptions to that rule, I believe were players who were born in refugee camps, who do not qualify for nationality by birth and we just put the nationality they represented later). With Sterling who was one of those dual nationals,, I feel people just gave up trying to restore it to the consensus, because the extremely high profile players have so many views that people kept adding English and editors just gave up trying to restore it. RedPatch (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Another issue is that some people assume that most countries give citizenship on the basis of birthright (jus sanguinis), though that's not the case in most countries outside of the Americas. Just because Thiago Alcântara was born in Italy doesn't make him Italian; same goes for Erling Haaland and England. Other countries have "unconventional" ways of giving citizenship, such as based on how much you invest, or strictly on a paternal basis. We can't just look at the birth place and decide whether or not to omit the nationality. We should base it on reliable sources describing the subject's nationality. Nehme1499 15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In theory, yes of course, but in practice there are hundreds of articles with minimal sourcing and editors declaring one nationality (usually the descent one ahead of the birth one), and other variables also apply. It had been my assumption that players born raised and playing in a single country must be at least partially a citizen of that country (though clearly it wouldn't apply to the many who leave that country after a short time, like the 'sons of expat players' mentioned above and the many war displaced who return home rather than staying). However it is sourced that Jake Hirst, for example, is not a German citizen despite living his whole life there, and only has a British passport. Personally I find it strange that people living in any country permanently would not wish to integrate themselves and their children born there more fully into its culture etc, but I suppose they don't have to. That particular situation would have been made easier by EU rules (not any more, thanks Brexit) but that won't be the case for the two most common combinations I have come across, Algeria-France and Turkey-Germany. But those two are well-known complex historical relationships and may have specific laws in place regarding movement, I'm uncertain. I have been "following the rules" and changing a few intros to the birth nation where there is no indication of the player living anywhere else and no indication that they have been selected by the descent national teams, but now I'm not so sure, maybe those should have been left out. Is Mahrez a French citizen? As above, I had always taken it as a given that he was due to his circumstances, and of course if he had been picked for France at any level it would be automatic. But same goes for Jake Hirst, a non-German at this point. However, unlike Hirst and a few others, generally there will be little or nothing stating "He was born in X but is only a citizen of Y", that's pretty niche information and journalists can't/shouldn't make the assumption any more than us so it would need to be some kind of interview scenario where they specifically state it or are asked. Crowsus (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We'd all agree that someone born and raised in England and who represents England (and has represented no other nations) should be described as English though(Lucy Bronze)? Spike 'em (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm always keen to claim Berwick for Scotland ;-) but IMO yes, she has strong links to Portugal but born, schooled and plays for England. I also think the 'Portuguese name' hatnote is spurious, yes the order follows the Portuguese order but its very common for the maternal surname to be a middle name in the Anglosphere, and birth would have been registered here (OK that is an assumption). If it was her brother who was the professional, it would be less clear cut on both the nationality and name. Crowsus (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm one of the few that thinks that "English" should be omitted in Sterling lede and Jamaica mentioned, but what do I know. I'd prefer having a consensus and having it equally applied for all players, but I reckon that's pretty much impossible.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
i doubt he even still has a jamacian passport. he moved 25 years ago and he uses his english passport so why would he even have a jamacian one at this pointMuur (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Just because the passport expired doesn't mean he doesn't have citizenship. The loss of citizenship is a complicated matter; unless we have reliable sources proving that happened, we shouldn't assume any changes in citizenship of a subject. Nehme1499 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Emma Watson was born in France, and Kane (wrestler) in Spain, they are not described as French or Spanish but rather English and American.Muur (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Because they don't hold French and Spanish citizenship respectively, afaik. Nehme1499 10:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
you got proof they dont, and also proof sterling doesMuur (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
As long as there are sources... Nehme1499 21:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
i asked for sourcesMuur (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The specific cases of Sterling, Watson and Kane aren't important per se. I'm talking about any given article that has a reliable source stating the subject's nationality situation. Nehme1499 23:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

1994–95 Mexican Primera División club season pages

Why are they being purged? The Mexican newspaper archives, a few published books from the 1990s and other sources can be used on these articles. I really don't understand the problem here for the reason for these articles to be at AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Simply add these sources to show GNG is met, if you can. GiantSnowman 09:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Gian Piero Ventrone

Former Tottenham athletic trainer died two days ago. Some English sources (i.e. BBC and the Guardian) say he died at 61 (Italian ones don't) but he can't given everyone says he was born in April 1960. Is the solution used by PHFLai correct iyo? Dr Salvus 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If the majority of sources say 62 - and that is supported by COMMONSENSE - then say 62. Some English-language sources also reflect that, such as BT. GiantSnowman 11:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Template clean up and fixing

A container category to gather all football-related tracking categories has been created:

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Association football templates parameter issues
Pages using football kit with incorrect pattern parameters
Football squad on pitch using shift
Football template errors
Pages using infobox football biography with position matching retired
Pages using infobox football league with province, state, or region
Pages using Infobox football official with unknown parameters
Pages using football box collapsible with blank class parameter
Pages using football box collapsible with class parameter
Articles with shield param

Interested editors are invited to add these categories into their watchlists to help clean up template issues. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OneFootball

Quick question-is OneFootball reliable? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of it - so I imagine not... GiantSnowman 08:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

GS, really, ydk it? In Italy, everyone continuously spams this app (especially Youtubers) but it's nothing special. Onefootball reports news from other sites so not I guess. Dr Salvus 08:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm probably too old... GiantSnowman 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Daniele De Rossi

Here I am again. I would like to ask why you continue to attribute the Argentine title to De Rossi with Boca Junior when neither the Argentine Federation, nor the club, nor CONMEBOL awards him, through an official statement. Is it only based on journalistic sources here? Thank you for your attention LittleWhites (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? GiantSnowman 17:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m talking to the football project. I'm asking which federation/association awards De Rossi the title. --LittleWhites (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a source stating that he didn't win it, as opposed to his other teammates? Nehme1499 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Expatriate non-playing staff

Should an English member of a non-playing staff have Category:English expatriate sportspeople in in X? Dr Salvus 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he's a sportsperson. Nehme1499 18:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - we have Category:Expatriate association football managers by nationality, and all the categories within that are (or should be) in the respective Category:X expatriate sportspeople category. GiantSnowman 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
non-playing staff components are not managers! Should there be a category only for this kind of people? Dr Salvus 18:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You misunderstand me - if we categorise managers as 'sportspeople', of course we should also categorise other similar non-players. And no, I do not think we need a separate container category. GiantSnowman 21:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done for Gian Piero Ventrone. Btw, can anyone close its AfD, so that it'll be posted at WP:ITN. Dr Salvus 17:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Belgian league names

Hello. Can someone explain why the article for the Belgian first-tier is Belgian First Division A, and why the article for the Belgian second-tier is located at Challenger Pro League? The article titles are not following the same conventions. Either they are called Belgian First Division A and Belgian First Division B, or they are called Jupiler/Belgian Pro League and Challenger Pro League. Or maybe I'm missing something here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We do not use sponsored names for leagues (or stadiums). GiantSnowman 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Moved it back to Belgian First Division B, as it was unilaterally moved without discussion in June. If someone wants to move both of them, they should start a WP:RM about it, though I agree with that Challenger Pro seems to be a sponsor name, and so we shouldn't use it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Hatchard League, Emirates Stadium. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well done - although the former is not a sponsored name, the latter is an exception that proves the rule on the basis that the non-sponsored name was never really used. GiantSnowman 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Should we include centralised friendlies?

In recent years, UEFA have organised "centralised friendlies" as part of their national team qualifying tournaments. In Euro 2016 qualifying, France were paired in a friendly match with the team not playing on each matchday in Group I, while Qatar were invited to do the same in Group A of 2022 World Cup qualifying. Though not counted in the standings, the matches were considered part of the group schedule by UEFA (see here, here), and alternate standings were published with the friendlies included (by UEFA and FIFA). A similar situation has arisen in the 2023 Women's World Cup qualifying play-offs, with FIFA organising friendly matches as part of the event. I was wondering, since these friendly matches were organised in tandem with the qualifiers, should we include them on the relevant articles (example from 2016), with an explanation that the results do not count in the table/tournament? Or should only the official competition matches be included? Would appreciate some input. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong choice to consider them part of the qualifiers but if UEFA does so, so should we. I'd insert a section called "Centralised friendlies". Dr Salvus 09:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Do any independent sources include them in such a manner? If not, if exclude them.Spike 'em (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Spike 'em, if they are just considered routine friendlies by reliable sources then they should be treated as routine friendlies. No reason why a note can't be added to the qualifying pages though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
id include them on the relevant group pages, but not in the table. just showing they played thsoe matches too as a guest in teh group but the matches dont count as official or whatever. i think portugal did it when they were hosts too.Muur (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
They are just friendlies, so i go with no. Kante4 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to add content / 2021 in association football / Deaths

Bumping thread. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Being worked on: 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Today I started updating January 2021 Deaths section of 2021 in association football. Right away I noticed there are many people to be added. Then I started more sections for Feb. thru December. So I'm asking for help here - anyone who can contribute, it would be great. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For tracking, I added Progress section below. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Progress

Player Nicknames

This is kind of messy, but I noticed that this had been a topic of discussion here before[2] and it's been brought up a couple of times[3] on this article and now again[4]. It doesn't appear that there was a clear consensus in either discussion. Should nicknames for players remain in the infobox or be mentioned in the lead as well? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Afaik, we don't put nicknames in infoboxes at all. Nehme1499 09:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There used to be a "nickname" parameter in the player infobox but it was removed because of the amount of crap that got put in there. That must have been at least ten years ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, we do not use nicknames in infoboxes. It can be mentioned in the lede if notable. GiantSnowman 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If notable, I am assuming we are referring to their nickname being incredibly common and still relevant, and unless it's their used footballing name (such as common with Brazilians such as Ronaldinho) I wouldn't ever expect to read "Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, also known as the Baby Faced Assassin, is a Norwegian Football Manager" cited to articles dating back to 1997.
Such media attributed nicknames should, at most, go in context in the lede (such as "Yogi" John Hughes (footballer, born 1943)), but many would more likely would be better dealt with in the body. By that token I'm somewhat surprised Gordon Banks doesn't seem to have any obvious reference to "Banks of England" in the lede. Koncorde (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Nicknames shouldn't be mentioned in the lead unless they are pretty much universally known and recognised (eg Gazza). Less notable nicknames can be mentioned in the body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I recently added nicknames in the lead to Patrick Ciurria, Carlos Augusto (footballer) and Michele Di Gregorio; are those instances fine, or should I move the content to a "Personal life" section, for example? Nehme1499 11:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Move those to a separate section I would say per WP:UNDUE. GiantSnowman 11:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Given that those nicknames are not really associated with the players' style of play, should they be moved to "Personal life"? Nehme1499 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If it's a nickname that has notability / longevity then it should be easy to track it to its first use and then just say "in x following x, x began to be referred to as x as a result of x" or similar within the club career. Koncorde (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, some nicknames are better known than the real names. Norbert Stiles, anyone? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
For people like Nobby Stiles we have WP:NICKNAME. That doesn't apply to anyone in this discussion because they are more commonly known by their full name so mentioning the nickname in an appropriate location in the prose is all that's needed. If it's a nickname they earned while playing for club x then put it in that section, if it's a nickname derived from there full name or an event in their life then put it in the personal life section. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Removed following Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 3#Nicknames, only subsequent significant discussion seems to be Template talk:Infobox football biography/Archive 4#Nickname part 3 - propose to reinclude. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2022-23 Tigres UANL season

Hey. I am making a 2022-23 Tigres season in my sandbox and was wondering if somebody could give a bit of assistance. I appear to be doing okay on most things (done the squad and staff and everything) but I am absolutely incompetent at the transfers. I am, to put it in the nicest terms possible, useless at finding sources for stuff and can’t find articles to reliably source most of the transfers. I don’t need any help with anything else; I haven’t finished the matches yet but that’s pretty simple stuff that I know how to do and should be able to get done soon, but just with the transfers please. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You could use a list which sumarises all transfers of the season (for example transfermarkt) and then each transfer search for a relevant source (for example search "Samir Caetano Watford Tigres" and you can find this or this, though a Spanish search would probably better). Don't use Transfermarkt as a source though since it's usergenerated and not neccesarily reliable. --SuperJew (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem. I have a list of the 20222-23 Tigres transfers on worldfootballnet, but when I search up "Vladimir Loroña to Tigres UANL" for example, nothing comes up relating to that transfer specifically (just player profiles on a bunch of different football sites). I tried searching up "Vladimir Loroña" on ESPN Deportes and nothing came up about that transfer in particular. Do spanish articles not show up properly on google or something?
Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
First site at google (I just removed the "to" as most sources are spanish). Kante4 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Vivianne Miedema

Could an admin look at protection here? There is a single-use+multiple IP account who is now at 9 reverts by various editors over the past few days. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done - interestingly all of the IPs geolocate to Qatar... GiantSnowman 11:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's a coincidence. Nehme1499 12:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd started a discussion on the associated talk page wondering why this is the case of removal content after other editors restored the same content. Looks like there are promising clues here as to why that was the case. Conversely, see the new section I just started regarding the potential of edit warring about the number 2022 as the end date. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sam Kerr

Per this, it was agreed with two editors that we should use soccer instead of footballer but someone else disagrees. Not sure if that someone else had looked at the talk page yet. I have changed it back in line with the view of the discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

'Soccer' is correct. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully a warning seen on the Sam Kerr talk page would stop the person to incorrectly change that term to what we say is right. I haven't seen any recent reverts yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

South Coast derby

Hi.

I am in danger of being blocked as a result of an edit war with an IP (probably a Portsmouth fan) over edits to the South Coast Derby article. He insists on including a recent minor cup match between the two clubs' youth sides. I have attempted to explain, both in edit summaries and on one of his talk pages (his IP changes daily), that only first-team matches are included but nothing comes back from him. He reverts every edit, even those that are correcting other errors. Any suggestions, other than wait a while unto he gets bored? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  • OK, that's daft. I've semi-protected the aticle for a month. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Players for the national Spanish Women's football team

Not sure if many of you are aware of this: a handful of their players have been refused to play for this team while Jorge Vilda remains in charge. In terms on what's going on Wikipedia, a random IP address decides to insert "2022" as the end date to some of those articles - examples [5], [6], [7]. I can't say those are definitely the end dates since they could still play in the future. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree with you, end date should still be open unless they formally retire.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. GiantSnowman 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    I am also in agreement here. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Or haven't been selected for 2 years....Spike 'em (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather, once a player is removed from the recent call-ups section of their respective national team page per our consensus guideline. Nehme1499 09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
And once again, the national football article article has the regional flags before each player. I removed them but that has been the case several times over the last year(s). Kante4 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Either way, in all cases, the withdrawn players were called up as recently as this year. I can see flags appearing in the recent callups table while I was looking at who is on there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Alexander López

So in an article released by the Guardian today, it was revealed that the article of Alexander López was vandalized with fake information (not by him or anyone associated with him) nearly a decade ago that may have impacted his career. Looks like some remnants of that is still in the article (namely his first spell Olimpia statistics). Here is the article. It's an interesting read. RedPatch (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is certainly a discrepancy between his appearances and goals in his first spell at Olimpia in the infobox [51 (23)] and the stats table [95 (6)]. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I've uniformed the stats between the infobox and career stats table according to Soccerway and NFT. Nehme1499 08:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Definitely an interesting article (the Guardian one) although the author wildly overestimates his own importance - any pro club basing a six-figure signing purely on stats in Wikipedia would be crazy. Turns out it really played no part in López's career, he was good enough on his real talent to get the move, as he had been to get in the Olympic team before the 'help'. Setting up fake meetings for tabloid transfer LOLs is a bit different from expecting that fiddling the infobox had an impact on a signing, he's a bit deluded if he ever did think that. Crowsus (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
A club signing a player just based on his WP stats is indeed quite unlikely, but if it did occur it probably still wouldn't be as ridiculous as a club signing a player solely based on someone phoning them up and telling them he was brilliant..... :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Here is the "Honduran Maradona" edit mentioned in the article. The account is Special:Contributions/82.42.179.184 — not too many edits to go through and check if any inaccuracies remain. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
weve actually seen quite a few times where a player was signed simply from looking at wikipedia. one guys wikipedia said he scored 50 goals for qpr and got him a job at some foreign team as they saw that on wiki only for the truth to come out and he got sacked. afaik his agent edited it before hand or something and that got him the job.Muur (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Any club that signs a player based only on their stats on WP is clearly run by a bunch of clowns who deserve what they get... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this...

...remind you of anyone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Btm0942)? "Maybe" this person?

Attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:7C61:7CEE:36CD:1DFA (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

...he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than (he) would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same" – Best known for IP

Lmao. And yeah, seems to be some similarities but there are at least some differences too.
by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

2020–21 Burundi Ligue A needs updating for the correct season

2020–21 Burundi Ligue A is sourced to a page for the 19-20 season, and much of its content is from the wrong season too. More information is on the talk page here. Perfect4th (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Counting honours

Is there any really any need to "count" honours like at Ebbsfleet_United_F.C.#Honours? I am reasonably sure that most readers can count to 2..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We arleady have an eight, not to have an incoherence, I'd say yes. Dr Salvus 14:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I guess for an eight like Dr Salvus said it would make it easier to scan the page and then the rest is just to have a consistent format I suppose. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This was discussed for player articles. Most editors seemed to agree that counts below 6 are unnecessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Six seems a reasonable cut off point.--EchetusXe 18:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
6 seems an arbitrary cut-off point. I'd say have a count for anything over 1 or don't have at all. --SuperJew (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Then 2 would be the arbitrary cut-off point.--EchetusXe 08:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not arbitrary since 1 is singular and 2 is many. --SuperJew (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Two-year seasons (such as 2022–23) might be interpreted as two separate seasons by some non-sports savvy readers, so I don't see the harm in writing (1). Nehme1499 10:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories for players who haven't played for the first team

Background: We have always categorised players by clubs that they have signed for, whether or not they have played, and whether or not they have been professional, amateur, youth etc. Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. We'd arleady discussed on in early February, finding no concensus.

How should we categorise footballer who just played for a team at youth level? I'll make a second survey (after the one held in February)

  1. Inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level (what we currently do)
  2. Not inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level
  3. Inserting a team's category for whom he's ever signed a professional contract
  4. Inserting the category for teams inserted in the "Senior career" of the footballer's infobox
  5. Creating subcategories for players such as: Juventus F.C. first-team players, Juventus Next Gen players, Juventus F.C. Youth Sector players, Juventus F.C. (women) players and Juventus F.C. (women) Youth Sector. Category:Juventus F.C. players would still exist, but being composed by the aforementioned subcategories.
  6. Any other suggestion. (Specify below)

Dr Salvus 18:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion made prior to the RFC open

Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. Example: Samuel Iling-Junior spent nine years in Chelsea youth teams without making the first-team debut. Why should the page have Category:Chelsea F.C. players? We'd arleady discussed on in early February, finding no concensus. I would like to revive the discussion again.

In Iling-Junior's example, I would put Category:Juventus Next Gen players (three appearances for them) but I would not put Category:Juventus F.C. players because he has yet to make his first-team debut. Any objection? Dr Salvus 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should week them in such categories, like Category:Chelsea F.C. players, because being a "Chelsea player" doesn't inherently mean you're on the first team of the club. You can be a "Chelsea player" and be a youth team player. From the moment the player can validly "I am a Chelsea player", I would put him in that category. This is my personal take and what we have been going off of for a while. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Support removing categories for youth only player I agree that we shouldn't include categories for youth clubs, only senior. Iling-Junior has never been a Chelsea senior player or had a pro senior contract with Chelsea, so no one in real life would call him an ex-Chelsea player.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Thing is, in real life, or as close to it as reliable published sources get, they do call Iling-Junior an ex-Chelsea player: Goal.com: Samuel Iling-Junior: Ex-Chelsea wonderkid impressing at Juventus, Evening Standard via MSN: "On the bench is former Chelsea forward Samuel Iling-Junior", BBC text commentary: "Miretti could find himself up against a familiar face - Juventus team-mate Samuel Iling-Junior, the former Chelsea youth winger who moved to Italy in 2020.", etc etc etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think being called a "Chelsea youth" or "Chelsea wonder-kind" is different than being a Chelsea player. Maybe it's conjecture, but I don't think many would consider him a proper ex-Chelsea player, or perhaps I'm mistaken. Like no one would say Harry Kane is an ex-Arsenal player, or Giggs an ex-Man City player, and it would be ridiculous to imply that. Players in List of one-club men in association football often play for more than one youth team.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the criterion should be having a professional contract, rather than playing for the first team. Most clubs have signed players who are put in the development squad but never make the first team and move on, but they were still professional players for that club. However, being a 10-year old on the books of the likes of Chelsea does not really make you a Chelsea player. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Was he to be a phenomenon, no one may ever remember him as a "Chelsea" player. The 99% of a team's fans aren't interested in its youth teams. Dr Salvus 10:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Would also remove categories when playing only in youth sector. Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll add my name to the "let's not have youth players in a category for senior players" list. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that such categories should be reserved for players who have earned a cap for senior teams, whether men's or women's. Youth club teams are generally non-notable, though some exceptions could be made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Then, I would instead include the categories for the reserve teams who play in a league which is in the national league system (e.g. France, Spain, Italy but not England) Dr Salvus 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
What about players who were with a club as a professional but didn't play any actual games? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's take Mohamed Farès' example. In January, Lazio loaned him to Torino until June. A few days later, he had an ACL injury which prevented him from making his debut. Since the player was assigned to the first team, I'd insert Category:Torino F.C. players.

Another example: Gabriele Mulazzi signed a professional contract in September 2020. However, he spent the 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons with Juventus U19 and was promoted to the U23s this summer (and still plays Youth League matches for the U19s as an overage player). In this case, I would not include Category:Juventus F.C. players beacuse the player has not been assigned to the 1st team nor fielded by the 1st team. Dr Salvus 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If the team is included in the "Senior career" section of the infobox I would include the category, even if the player never made an appearance for them. Categories should be removed if they only played at youth level for that club. Reserve team players (in senior pyramids) should only have the reserve team categories, not senior. Nehme1499 21:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nehme1499, take Brando Moruzzi's example. In January, Juventus purchased him from a Serie D team and promptly loaned him back to that team. This summer he made his return at Juventus with whom he was assigned to the U19s. He has never played for the first team but he's in the "Senior career" section of the infobox (because "youth career cannot extend beyond senior"). Would you really add Category:Juventus F.C. players to the page?
(And tbh, I've seen all Juventus U19's matches this season and, due to his poor performances, I do doubt he'll ever play for the first team) Dr Salvus 21:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I have been bold and have removed categories for the Juventus U23's players who haven't yet played for the first team. Dr Salvus 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
That goes against current consensus. I'm not saying I disagree with the proposal, but it needs to be agreed upon. Crowsus (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We have always categorised players by clubs that they have signed for, whether or not they have played, and whether or not they have been professional, amateur, youth etc. To do otherwise would introduce too many variables and therefore too much room for arguments and conflict. GiantSnowman 14:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The confusion is limited to current Juventus U23's players. If we don't get the concensus, I'll revert all my edits.
But I, Nehme, Redman, Jkudlick, Ortizesp, Kante4, Brazilian dude (from the February discussion) (and might be missing some other) do agree on not putting categories if the player only played at youth level. How many other users agreeing on do we need for a concensus? Dr Salvus 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
For the specific Juventus - if they are signed to the club at any level, put in Category:Juventus F.C. players. If they play for Juventus Next Gen, then put in that category as well. Same goes for Jong Ajax, Real Madrid Castilla etc.
I see no consensus to exclude youth players from categories. If a player plays for a club from 6 to 21 and never makes the first team, he should still be included - as should somebody who spends 2 years with a youth set up. Rule of thumb - if it's in the infobox, we should have a category. Otherwise we provide a incomplete picture of the player. GiantSnowman 17:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at this section and the different opinions it is not so clear to have them included if they just played in their youth. Kante4 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You need a RFC to change something like this that would affect so many thousands and thousands of articles. GiantSnowman 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Dr Salvus 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Nope - a RFC has to be done properly. Start a fresh discussion, clearly state the issue, and propose the options so people can discuss and !vote. GiantSnowman 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion made after the RFC open

  • Option 1 (kind of) - which is maintain the status quo of including a player in the club category for any/all clubs they have been signed with, because a) to do otherwise would introduce too many variables and therefore too much room for arguments and conflict and b) otherwise we provide a incomplete picture of the player. Rule of thumb - if it's in the infobox, we should have a category. GiantSnowman 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 exclude youth players from the category. So many never make it to the senior team so i think it's not needed to have them in the category. Kante4 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (which is really an Option 2a): if the club is in the "Senior career" section of the infobox, the player should have the respective categories. If the club is only in the "Youth career" section of the infobox, the player should not have the category. Nehme1499 18:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    this will then lead to argument about whether or not a club should be in the 'senior' section of the infobox... GiantSnowman 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Isn't that a subset of the already-existing differing views on "when does a player's youth career end"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Similar, for sure - so option 4 is just asking for a whole heap of edit wars... GiantSnowman 14:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 4 I and a few other follow youth football. In previous Samuel Iling-Junior's example: if he doesn't come back to Chelsea, no one may effectively remember that Iling played for Chelsea. Dr Salvus 18:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC) I've changd idea after the discussion with Nehme1499 and ChrisTheDude. Dr Salvus 10:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4, I believe this could be managed as long as good sense and sourcing is used for the infobox. Youth section = No category. Senior section = Category. There will still be debates, mostly around the 'when does youth career end', and particularly for 17yo kids breaking through at a low level, being signed by a top club and being dumped in their youth team, many of whom never play for the top club's first team. I don't have an easy solution for that but I think it's important to bring it up. But it is pretty clear cut in most cases. I have been following the 'at club at any time' rule up to now but it has seemed pretty daft adding a Category for a player who is a sourced as playing for a really elite club, but in fact it was for a year at u13s and their career was otherwise at lower levels. Crowsus (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    Can I tell you the problem with Option 4? Do read what I said on Brando Moruzzi above. Would you really add the category in that case? Dr Salvus 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    A double problem there. Had he still been in the Juventus U19s, ideally I would have put Juventus in the youth career section, but that seems to be considered an impossibility as he has already played senior games so his youth career 'has ended' - even though it clearly has not. However, that is moot since he has been loaned back to Sangiovannese, Juventus really has to be in the senior box as the loaning club, as you have done. And if he's contracted to a club in between making senior appearances for another club then yes, I would include the category. And I would add it for all the Chelsea players who went to Vitesse for 4 years until they were 22 but nowhere near the first team, as the loaning club was their employee and they were senior players. It makes more sense to use that existing youth/senior box as a category divider rather than... Actually where does your proposal make the cut? An appearance in any competition? A league appearance? A place in a match squad (this can be difficult to verify in some leagues and some time periods)? A senior contract (again, difficult to verify)? A certain age? Apologies if you did lay out the specific criteria above and I missed it. Crowsus (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Idk whether he's signed a professional contract or not. However, he's been assigned to Juventus U19 and I think (having seen his performances) that he does not have the capacity to get to play for the first team and that it would arleady be a miracle if he played for Juventus U23. Even should he ever enter into a loan limbo without ever getting anywhere near the first-team, I would not put the first-team category. Most Juventus fans wouldn't even be aware of his existence. Dr Salvus 00:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's the 100th time I say this: I'd put in the category only the players who have played a match for the first team (being called up means nothing imo) or the players who were meant to be for the first team (see Mohamed Fares' example above). Dr Salvus 00:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    who were meant to be for the first team: how do we determine that? It's extremely WP:OR. And what about the infamous 3rd-choice GKs? Do those not get categories? Nehme1499 00:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the player is assigned to a youth/reserve team, I think at least a source will say this. If the 3rd-choice goalkeeper is always called up by the first team (except when injured), I do believe he's clearly a first-team player. Dr Salvus 08:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not every country, league or team has as much coverage as Juventus. We need to take into account "smaller" nations where it's not possible to do this (imo OR) analysis. A clear-cut method is to base the categories on the infobox. I'd rather include the categories for the youth teams than have to resort to personal judgement (he was called up 10 times, is it enough? Sources don't say if he's senior or not, what do I do? Do I open a new discussion at WT:FOOTY everytime?). Including either all the teams in the infobox (youth+senior), or just the ones in the senior career (my preference) leaves no margin for confusion. Nehme1499 10:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    "If the player is assigned to a youth/reserve team, I think at least a source will say this" - that definitely isn't true if you go back more than about 30 years, even for "major" countries. I think if you go back to the 1980s in England, you would struggle to even find information on unused substitutes, so an 18 year old player could have warned the bench multiple times (which would suggest he was "meant to be for the first team") but we simply wouldn't know. And if you go back even further to, say, the early 1960s when there weren't substitutes you have essentially no chance of working out if a player who left a club aged 18 was ever "meant to be for the first team".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    I've reflected a bit and changed my optinion to option 4. I must've voted the option 2 because in Italy, it's quite easy to find info on those who only warmed the bench in a game. Dr Salvus 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, anyway, can I ask you what you prefer beetween option 1 and option 4? Dr Salvus 10:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the <1980s dude in question didn't play a first-team match and left the club when he had the age to play for a youth team (Idk the maximum age in England of that moment) I would not add the category. Dr Salvus 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    In England it was under-23, now under-21 - except for the overage players who play... GiantSnowman 18:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (Option 1) Realistically, if a consensus is agreed to who is actually going to go through thousands and thousands of players on thousands of team categories. It's simply an impossible task given the current existence of these categories for youth players. While I would prefer it for only senior players, at this point we're simply in too deep. Even if you fix it for one team (for example Juventus) someone will come along and say we have the category for, for example Tottenham or PSG youth players that hasn't been fixed, and then re-add the categories to Juve youth players. RedPatch (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    We explain the concensus was got in the edit summary, problem solved. Since you prefer it for only senior players, please vote either 2 or 4. Dr Salvus 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Based on my comment, my vote is for Option 1. It's too impossible of a task otherwise, in my opinion. RedPatch (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I would keep the categories for reserve teams playing in a league that is part of the national football pyramid, but I would not sub-categorise them with those of the respective first teams. E.g. Category:Juventus Next Gen players would not be child category of Category:Juventus F.C. players. Dr Salvus 23:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, it would still be a subcategory in the background, as that is how categorization works (a reserve team is unavoidably a branch of the main club), but the June U23/Next Gen-only players would not appear in the same category list as the first teamers, nor would "Juventus FC players" appear on their articles, which is the whole point of removing the youth-then-U23 players from the senior cat, and of course is already applied to those who sign and play specifically for the U23s. Crowsus (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
(Maybe, I don't understand your message properly). If we made an Eulero-Venn diagram on players who have played a 1st-team match, we could not put a subset with players who have played with Juventus U23 because most of these players are/were not good enough to play a match for 1st team. Dr Salvus 00:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@RedPatch It's too impossible of a task read Nehme1499's today's comment. Dr Salvus 10:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Still feel Option 1 is the best, yes there is no time limit, but I don't think it will ever get done. I also don't have an issue with having the category for the youth team. I feel there should be some sort of category (whether it is a youth category or a general one) RedPatch (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment the statement of the RFC itself doesn't seem at all neutral, particularly Neither I, nor many WP:FOOTY members like the fact that we put categories on players who haven't played for the first team. which is clearly pushing a viewpoint rather than being NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I vote for Option 1. The other options leave too much room for pointless debates and edit warring, not to mention countless hours of work in changing to the new consensus. Additionally, I think if we were to go down that route then it would make sense for a category for youth teams to be created. So this Fabrizio Romano guy would be in the Juventus youth team category, and only be added to the first team category if he were to make his debut or turn professional there. Maybe that could be option 5? But yeah, that would still leave us open to lots of debate and work. EchetusXe 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Fabrizio Romano guy, are you talking about Brando Moruzzi? Dr Salvus 12:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • lol, yes, sorry. --EchetusXe 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, if that means maintain the status quo, because it's the only realistic option, per GiantSnowman/RedPatch/EchetusXe etc above. Once upon a time, a decision was reached to categorise players by the clubs they were on the books of – not 10-year-olds who once went to a summer camp or whatever, but players who were verifiably attached to that club. Whether people liked it or not, it was straightforward, and it's generally worked across time and across place, apart from possibly at Juventus. Since that decision was made, changes have been suggested several times, nobody's yet come up with a functional alternative that could reach consensus, and I don't see one here. As to Options 2/3/4, the idea of blindly removing Category:Manchester City F.C. players from Jadon Sancho (an extreme example, but a valid one) might make our readers think we'd lost touch with reality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see Sancho as a big issue to be honest. It would still say in the box and in the text that he was involved with City. If we changed the rule and removed the category, anyone challenging it on the youth team basis could be directed back here as "he never played a first team game [and didn't have a senior listing for the club in the infobox (optional)], that's how it's been agreed to sort it now." It isn't much different to someone potentially challenging it on the opposite basis just now. Crowsus (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Question – What is the functional difference between Option 2 and Option 4? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Jkudlick there's a little difference beetween them. Option 2 says not to use categories for players who played only at youth level. Option 4 says to use categories only for the teams who appear at the "Senior career" section of the infobox.
    The difference can be explained through an example. In January, Juventus bought Brando Moruzzi, who was playing for Serie D club Sangiovannese and promptly loaned him back to them. Once returned from the loan, he's been assigned to the U19s.
    Since his career had already started in 2021, "Juventus" must be put in the "Senior career" section of the infobox. With option 2, Moruzzi would not have Category:Juventus F.C. players. With option 4, he would. Dr Salvus 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Dr Salvus: Thank you for the clarification. My selection remains Option 2. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4, the current status quo doesn't reflect real life. No one in the planet calls would call Giggs an ex-Man City player, or Kane an ex-Arsenal player, and if those clubs are mentioned it's exclusively tongue in cheek or calls them their youth clubs.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, I see an incoherence with the Option 4. If we don't categorise Giggs as a Man City player because he played only at their youth, why would we categorise Moruzzi (should he never make his first-team debut) as a Juventus player just because he'd already started his senior career? Dr Salvus 18:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yep - what if Giggs had spent 15 years playing for Man City at youth level before making his name with Man Utd? GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A practical consideration - not having youth players in club categories will really mess up searches from Wikipedia:PetScan. GiantSnowman 18:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
not having players in youth categories, so you want a category like Category:Manchester City F.C. Youth Sector to put Giggs onto it? Why not picking Option 5? But hadn't you said it'd be a "carnage" in February? Dr Salvus 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I want youth players to be in the 'senior' club category, as they always have been. Somebody tried to create something like Category:Celtic F.C. youth players a few years ago and that alone was messy - having one category for senior players and another for youth players is a terrible idea. GiantSnowman 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are you against it? Dr Salvus 19:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Because you have twice as many categories, for no purpose or benefit. GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
We already have categories for youth national teams, it's not such an extreme solution. Would you categorize an England U17 international under the senior category? Nehme1499 18:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Apples and oranges; we deal with club and international football differently and you know that. Also the current international 'youth' categories are much slimmed down from previous years, where there were separate categories for under-15, under-16 etc. GiantSnowman 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Straw man arguement, you still haven't explained why you view them as "apples and oranges". And you know that... yeah, I know that this is your approach, not that I necessarily agree with it. No one asked for separate categories for under-15s, 16s... only for one single youth category. Doesn't seem that unreasonable. Nehme1499 19:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
they are apples and oranges. Currently, a player gets added to club category as soon as they sign - but for international they actually have to play. We categorise international players by 'senior' and 'youth' because those are very well established parts of the international set-up, and super easy to differentiate between youth and senior international players. None of that is true for club players. GiantSnowman 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 – just like the article on a club primarily covers with the senior team (and youth/academy teams if notable have their own articles), the category should also reflect that, in my opinion. Per WP:CAT, the defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to [...]. While the strict interpretation of that would lead to wildly inconsistent categorisation, a slightly more relaxed interpretation still in the spirit of WP:CAT, but that creates consistency, would be to draw the line at senior career clubs. It feels utterly ridiculous to categorise a player based on the fact that they participated in a few youth matches for a club at the age of 10. That's extremely far from a defining characteristic of the player. – Elisson • T • C • 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Are you saying who spent 15 years with a club as a youth player should not be defined by that, but a 1 week loan spell as a senior player is defining? GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    When I lived in Belgium, I had a friend who was taken on loan by Club Brugge just to play a youth tournament in which they were eliminated at the first round. Should this one ever be a professional player, would you really add Category:Club Brugge KV players just for that youth tournament game? Dr Salvus 19:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    probably not - because it would probably not be in the infobox. GiantSnowman 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Emanuele Pecorino was taken on loan by Milan for the Torneo di Viareggio in March 2019 (for whom he played only a match). At that moment, he had not yet made his Catania first-team debut. Should the loan for the Torneo di Viareggio be put in the infobox? Dr Salvus 00:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Pecorino appears to have had two spells with Milan's youth team, making nearly 20 youth appearances. So yes, I would continue to categorise him as a Milan player. GiantSnowman 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    This subthread is an example of why I feel the conversation has turned a little WP:OR. We should be guided by the reliable sources. What do they say about whether Pecorino is considered a Milan player? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Barnards.tar.gz the article does say this on his Milan spells: In March 2019, AC Milan took him on loan for the Torneo Di Viareggio youth tournament. He scored a goal in the round of 16, in which they were eliminated by Charles De Ketelaere's Club Brugge. [...] In summer 2019, Pecorino returned to Milan's youth setup on loan; he scored seven goals in 14 appearances in the Campionato Primavera 2 – nine in 18 in all competitions, helping his side gain promotion to the Campionato Primavera 1. Each sentence has its source in the article. Dr Salvus 14:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's hard for me to be sure because I'm reading those through Google Translate, but I'd be willing to believe they both endorse the idea that he should be considered a Milan player. That's all I'm saying - we need to read the sources and let them guide us. It's not about number of goals scored, spells, or number of appearances, or whether the player was merely on loan at the time. It's about what the sources say. That will be more robust than trying to come up with our own rules for who counts as a player and who doesn't. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman my question on Pecorino was Should the loan for the Torneo di Viareggio be put in the infobox? Dr Salvus 14:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Probably not - in England, underage players often go on trial with other teams and play youth football for them (a game or two, normally). It's a similar situation here? GiantSnowman 15:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    No source said he did a "provino" (Italian word for trial). I guess a Milan observer saw him play, proposed him to Milan managers and to Milan U19's coach, who both decided to bring him for the Torneo di Viareggio. The strange thing is that he deal happened outside the transfer market window.
    If I'm not mistaken, in Italy, players on trial are ineligible to play an official match (they can train or play friendlies) because they are yet to be registered by the team for whom they're on trial. Dr Salvus 15:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Same rule in England (no trialists in competitive matches) - except for youth football, where trialists are allowed to play in the youth competitions. GiantSnowman 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: yes, that's exactly what I am saying. The 1 week loan spell during their senior career is more likely to generate multiple reliable sources associating the player with the club, than his/her 15 years in the youth sections of a club will generate. Just like sportspeople are not categorised by all the various sports they played at youth level (no matter for how long). – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hard disagree. As a quick example, Google Searches for 'David Beckham Tottenham' and 'David Beckham Preston' bring up about the same number of hits (just over 4 million each for me) - one was a youth career, the other a brief loan. GiantSnowman 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think that also has to do with the level/prestige difference between Spurs and Preston... Nehme1499 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Ah yes, because all those 4 million hits for DB and Tottenham naturally cover his career in the Tottenham academy. I Guess Beckham should be categorised as Swedish as well as 'David Beckham Sweden' brings up around 4 million hits for me, or 'David Beckham Hertha' and 'David Beckham Fiorentina' that scores around a million hits. Come on, you're smarter than this. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    What a stupid argument. GiantSnowman 20:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    It wasn't really an argument. It just showcased the irrelevance of your Google search results argument. – Elisson • T • C • 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see a huge inconsistency problem in following the definingness guideline. If reliable sources associate a player with a club, then put them in the club's category. If no such reliable sources exist, exclude them from the club's category. What problems would that create? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    My main concern is that it would lead to a mix and match of whether or not categories would actually match a well-defined scope. E.g. if I check Category:IFK Göteborg players, would it actually list all Wikipedia articles we have for senior team players, or would some players be semi-randomly excluded because sourced don't commonly and consistently associate the player with the club? To clarify, with "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" I am excluding pure database/statistical sources. If I would include those, sure then I agree with you. – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    To avoid such concerns - simply have all clubs categorised. GiantSnowman 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Define "all" clubs. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Every club a player has been signed to, obviously - like we do now. GiantSnowman 20:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, that's definitely not how we do now. I would ask you to define "signed to", but let's just get straight to the point. In many situations, youth players do not sign anything. In fact, the Swedish FA explicitly does not recognise any contracts for players under 15. so your "solution" doesn't seem to avoid the concerns I had with inconsistency by strictly following WP:CAT. – Elisson • T • C • 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Every club a player has joined, not signed. I'd change GS' message. Dr Salvus 19:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    It seems you don't want to maintain the status quo. Why don't you vote? Dr Salvus 16:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I can’t imagine a scenario where we couldn’t find a reliable source to tell us which clubs a notable player played for. If there really were no such sources, they probably shouldn’t have an article in the first place. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I know hundreds of articles without information on the player's youth teams he played for. Dr Salvus 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    So? If the information can be reliable sourced, add it (with supporting category). If it cannot, do not. This is simple. GiantSnowman 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. Those hundreds of articles without information on the player's youth teams he played for presumably aren't in the category for those youth teams, and that's as it should be. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 makes more sense to me. BRDude70 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1a: Inserting a team's category for whom he only played at youth level if reliable sources associate the player with the club. So by all means include them in the category, but only if we can source that association to a reliable source. Debating the association feels like WP:OR. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4- Only because I feel it is the simplest solution (is it not also basically option 2, only include senior and not youth?). I don't think a person who hasn't played for a club's first team can be described as a "club name player" and it is often easier to source if someone played in a game than the vagaries of football contracts. I'm not opposed to option 5, it just seems like a lot more work, adding extra categories for 1000s of teams. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 mainly because changing the current status quo would be unbelievably complex and also because, as shown above, sources often do describe players as "former [club] player" even if they only played at youth level. Option 5 would be madness - would every player who played both youth and senior at the same club need to be in both sub-categories? Whatever the answer is, I bet it wouldn't be consistently applied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Would every player who played both youth and senior at the same club need to be in both sub-categories? why not? It's what we do with national teams after all. Most senior national team players have played at youth level as well, meaning that they all have two national-team categories. Nehme1499 09:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, who would volunteer to go through and add separate youth categories to probably tens of thousands of articles? I know I wouldn't be up for that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Question I know a person who plays in a Juventus Academy in Belgium. Should he ever have an article, should he have Category:Juventus F.C. players keeping the status quo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Salvus (talk • contribs)
    That's another thing I was wondering: do members of offsite youth academies count as having played for the youth academy? Nehme1499 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, some clubs have loads of those over the world, it's more like a training/scouting scheme rather than being signed to the club. GiantSnowman 15:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think there are too many variables which make the inclusion of youth team members to club categories complicated. Keeping it only for senior-team participations is the easiest solution. Nehme1499 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, it's absolutely not, which is why it is not the current status quo. The easiest solution is to keep the status quo, which is to include players in any club category if they have been signed with that club. GiantSnowman 15:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    When I was 12, I played at S.S.D. Città di Gela's scuola calcio (football school) before having an injury. I was registered with them but I did not sign any contract (my parents just paid for the scuola calcio). If I was a professional player, would I have Category:S.S.D. Città di Gela players? Dr Salvus 16:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    How about you guys stop making up ridiculous hypothetical situations to try and promote your position? GiantSnowman 16:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's not ridiculous hypothetical situations, its reality. Which is why your position of "if they have signed with the club" is 1) not status quo, and 2) not realistic to use as a criteria. Stop trying to bully people to agree with you. – Elisson • T • C • 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    GS, you have forgot that we all said in previous days that no one would for instance consider Giggs as a Man City players nor would anyone consider Kane an Arsenal player.
    Read why people picked up the Options 2 and 4 above.
    Is it too much work? No problem, if we did it together, it would probably last no more than three months (to cover also the less known ones).
    To make an example, those who care on English football do it for English players l. Those who care on Italian football do it for Italian players. Nehme1499, who cares on Arabic World football does it for that kind of players. If the work is divided into parts, it'd be easy.
    Our ridiculous hypothetical situations are to know what to do should a similar situation happen if the status quo is kept. Dr Salvus 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman, my question on my Gela Calcio experience has yet to be replied. I wanted to make an example (using a personal experience) to know what to do should something similar happen. Dr Salvus 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    As I have said - playing at a football school run by or affiliated with a club is not enough. GiantSnowman 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Knowing whether he played in a football school or not is not always possible. Dr Salvus 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    We rely on what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 18:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    There's no youth team (under-<15s usually) which does not cost anything. Dr Salvus 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    The current status quo is what it is just because you keep pushing your POV, and leave barely any breathing room for editors to discuss any changes. Whenever someone proposes something (and this is not the first topic where this has happened), your main rebuttal is "it's the status quo for a reason, there is no need to change". Nehme1499 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm the one who suggested this RFC! How embarrassing for you. GiantSnowman 16:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    So you can keep shouting "status quo, status quo!" all the time... embarrassing indeed. Nehme1499 16:48, 17 September 2022‎ (UTC)
    No - I have made reasoned arguments in favour of the status quo, as have many others. Those arguments have not been dealt with by the opponents. GiantSnowman 16:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's simply not true. The status quo you claim is in effect (that as long as the player has been signed by a club the club category should be included) is not what's happening in reality. As mentioned before, no Swedish youth player can be signed by a club before the age of 15, yet there are many Swedish player articles that include club categories even though they only played there before age 15. People dislike arguing against false premises. – Elisson • T • C • 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    And that's why I talked about when I was at Gela Calcio's scuola calcio without signing any contract. Dr Salvus 17:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    (e/c) Just because you close your eyes and chose to ignore anyone who disagrees with you doesn't remove the fact that most of us raised valid points. Nehme1499 17:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Paraguayan Football Association

Hi, I ask for help to improve the article of the Paraguayan Football Association. The article was expanded but the it was vandalized and almost everything was deleted without any logical reason. I restored and everything was deleted again. I don't understand the reasons one user states in order to erase everything in such that way but I believe that if there are plenty of collaborators improving the article it's full version will remain. The Paraguayan soccer league is one of the most important of South America and it's association has a rich history that deserves to be told in Wikipedia. Ocatarinetabelachitchix (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: pinging involved editor. This edit ([8]) is the content dispute in question. Nehme1499 10:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe that some information could be retained, such as the history section, the president in the infobox, the president history table and the coat of arms. The internal organization section is completely unnecessary, while the football league system and the stadiums have their own article, and information can be kept there. The notability tags should definitely be removed. Nehme1499 10:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ballon D’or

May I ask where on earth the 2022 Ballon D’or page is? Why did it get deleted??? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  • It's at 2022 Ballon d'Or. It has never been deleted but there were some really bad attempts to move it to incorrect titles, which were reverted.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    • No, it's back there now, but it was moved to a different (incorrect) title for three hours, and after further moves the original title (redirect) was wrongly deleted, creating a redlink for more than 20 minutes (on this very high profile page, more than 250,000 pageviews yesterday!). I moved it back to the original title. Fram (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      Wow. Should we think about move protecting major football events while they are happening? It would be quite disastrous if this happened while half a million people were trying to look at the world cup scores on wikipedia. Also, did they seem like they were in good faith or were they obviously vandalism?
      Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      The man who messed up is a registered user. Dr Salvus 11:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      It seems to have been 2022 Ballon d'Or → 2022/2023 Ballon d'Or → 2021/2022 Ballon d'Or → 2022 Ballon d'Or. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      Seeing 2022/2023 made me lmao. I agree in having such preventive protections. Dr Salvus 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      So, do you think they were doing it in good faith?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      Idk. Dr Salvus 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep or move the Bury AFC article in the event of a merger with Bury FC?; Getting ahead of a potential issue

Timeline of events following the expulsion of Bury Football Club from the EFL
File:Screenshot of Bury football merger proposals.png
Diagram showing the proposed corporate structure of a new Bury Football Club

Decide in the event of Bury AFC merging to play as "Bury FC":

  • A) Keep the Bury AFC article
  • B) Move the Bury AFC article to Bury FC

Background (see attached diagrams): Voting is currently underway amongst members of two Bury supporters' groups, the Shakers Community Society and the Bury Football Club Supporters' Society. The principle decision is on whether to amalgamate the two societies into one, therefore combining all their assets. The SCS own a phoenix club called Bury AFC, whilst the BFCSS now control Gigg Lane, the Bury FC trading name, intellectual property and memorabilia of the Bury FC oldco after it was sold by administrators to a subsidiary company they 50+1 own. The former are also voting on whether to change the name and ground of their team that merger with the latter would facilitate. Presuming the results of these votes are yes, it will likely mean a team called "Bury FC" playing in the English pyramid and the cessation of a team called "Bury AFC". We could do with clarifying ahead of time what wikiaction to take when it occurs. Also see Talk:Bury F.C.#Consensus to maintain the 1885 formation date of Bury FC post-merger for a separate issue relating to the potential events.

Example of precedent in favour of option A (keep):

Example of precedent in favour of option B (move):

Nominator's argument in favour of option B (move): Although the project seems to keep the article of the clubs that merge together, I believe this case is not like the examples listed in option A as though two clubs are merging together nor to create a new club. Rather it is Bury AFC aquiring the asset of the "Bury FC" trading name by merger of two societies to rename one club and restore the other club (see background above). I think this is more in line with the precedent set by Darlington.

Raised by JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Address if and only if the merger occurs, which it hasn't yet. WP:COMMONNAME should be a good indication of the direction to take. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
i mean it kinda sounds like two wrestling titles being merged together. when wrestling does that it keeps both articles but has the one that gets absorbed as the defunct one. as an exmaple, WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). the latter was merged into the former and the latter was retired. if its just bury fc absorbing bury afc, then keep bury afc with their history since that's seasons and players etc that did not play for the original bury and just mention they were merged together then have like a line saying for the history of afc see here or whatever. so basically, my vote is to have two articles with the second covering what bury afc did as bury afc. in all honesty its basically just afc agreeing to die so the original bury can live. also unlike darlington, the original bury never died. like the other guy said though, its better to wait i guess, cuz maybe afc change to fc and its the original that dies.Muur (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The wrestling title analogy is a good one and I support keeping the article of the defunct one and opposed to merging them. To be technical about things though, the "original" Bury FC will die and is not involved in this vote (this doesn't affect the existence of the Bury FC article, however, because the WikiProject treats new companies with the same name as the same club like Rangers FC). All the assets of the original company were bought and transferred to BFCSS' subsidiary company. The merger in question is to amalgamate BFCSS (who own the name Bury FC and the stadium, Gigg Lane) with the SCS (who own the phoenix club Bury AFC). As The Sportsman summed up perfectly, it is a team with no ground and a ground with no team.
I agree that no action should be taken until something happens, this was merely to sound out a consensus before waiting until it happens and there is a flurry of activity in opposing directions. This vote has been prepared for the last few months and only opened yesterday. I believe it will be up to 30 days before it closes and then it will still be until next season before any decision is finally implemented. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT:changed opening argument as above, strikedthrough relevant comment as to not contradict myself JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Matilda Maniac and JamesLB - address if and when the merger occurs (my inclination would also be to retain the defunct article rather than merging). Paul W (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT: JLB changed argument as above, strikedthrough relevant comment as to not contradict Paul W JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Options A and B are completely different circumstances - A is about two existing clubs merging to form a new club, B is about a phoenix club. It is my understanding that Darlington (FC/1883) is essentially the same club - the article certainly deals with both? GiantSnowman 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree, I reflected on that in the paragraph below the examples. But the answer is what circumstance you believe applies to this case. IMO, this Bury FC/Bury AFC case would be more like Darlington. Bury AFC are merging their assets with a company/society that has no football team (yet), THEN renaming their club to Bury FC upon acquiring the name from the latter company/society. I changed my opinion to merge on this basis.
When Darlington reformed initially as "1883", it existed as a separate article and was only merged 5 years later when they renamed to FC. They say renaming "restored" the club but fundamentally whether it is the same club is semantic/subjective (although WP thinks so as long as they have the same name) – but in terms of companies they are at least different. None of this has happened (yet) with Bury though.
by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
There have been some tensions between the two Bury clubs, with protests by FC supporters affecting a recent AFC fixture. Do we take fan sentiment into consideration in looking at whether it was a smooth transition from old to new?
Keeping/merging issues also arose in relation to Aldershot F.C./Aldershot Town F.C., Darwen F.C./A.F.C. Darwen and Macclesfield Town F.C./Macclesfield F.C.. In each case, the phoenix article was retained; precedent in these cases was keep, it seems. Paul W (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge them if Bury A.F.C. do become Bury F.C. It seems as if Darwen F.C. and Darwen F.C. (1870) need merging too. Both Port Vale F.C. and Stoke City F.C. were liquidated in 907 and 1908 and then either another club changed their name to suit or a new club was formed with the same name. It's fairly common for this to happen in a club's history.--EchetusXe 16:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Dos" in Spanish names

For those well-versed in Spanish names: is the "dos" in Spanish names of people of Brazilian/Portguese descent capitalized or not? For example, Leo Dos Reis (full name: Leonardo Dos Reis Muñiz) is a Spanish citizen of Brazilian descent. Would his name be written "dos Reis" in Spanish documents? Even FC Barcelona is inconsistent with the spelling, sometimes writing "Dos Reis" ([9], [10]), and other times "dos Reis" ([11], [12]). Nehme1499 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but... His Brazilian father's surname is "Dos Reis", as per Spanish Wikipedia, so I'd expect Leo's to be the same. He uses caps on his instagram. The variation in the FCB sources is likely because some writers automatically assume that the particle takes lower case because Spanish names of that form usually do, and some know how to write his surname, which isn't Spanish. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the technically correct way in Portuguese is to have the "dos" in lower case. But then when you translate it over to Spanish, a whole new can of worms opens - generally the particles like "de" are lowercase, but "dos" isn't Spanish so maybe it doesn't follow that rule anymore (e.g. Argentines of Italian descent often have the particle capitalized, like Giovani Lo Celso). See here and here. If I had to pick, I would have it lower case since that is grammatically correct in both languages, but maybe the player himself doesn't follow convention.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Maurizio Nassi

Tbh, Idk what to do with this page. He (who is the coach of my Terza Categoria team, ok I'll stop reiterating this) was a successiful Serie B player in two seasons with respectable statistics beetween 2008 and 2010 (look at the it.wiki article). However, maybe, lots of sources that talked on him have been lost with time. With the old WP:NFOOTY, he would be notable hands down. What do I do? Dr Salvus 18:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Italian page seems to have a lot of references, can't you use those? You can also rescue some old links on the Internet Archive.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Some aren't avaible, some describe the Calcioscomesse scandal in which he was involved and the rest are interviews. Dr Salvus 19:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK interviews are fine for references, and can help pass GNG if they are not from primary sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Daniele De Rossi (3)

Good morning! Can i ask you how if Daniele De Rossi retired in January, how can he win a posthumous title four months later? Thank you. LittleWhites (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no source within the entry indicating the title win? The sources mention retirement without indicating a relationship between the player and the title won.--LittleWhites (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
As I already asked in the previous discussion, do you have a source stating that he didn't win it, as opposed to his other teammates? Nehme1499 06:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
No, we do not work that way - we need a source saying he did win. What is the honour in question? GiantSnowman 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2019–20 Argentine Primera División, which Boca won. De Rossi took part in five league games, so I don't see why he shouldn't be attributed with the title win. Nehme1499 08:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Not an honour at Soccerway. GiantSnowman 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know Soccerway had authority over player honours. Nehme1499 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a reliable source and that, as you know, is what we use to verify information. GiantSnowman 18:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of errors on Soccerway, from wrong images to wrong stats. Generally reliable doesn't mean always accurate. Nehme1499 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Conversely, NFT gives him the honour... I don't think we should be using database websites to determine whether a player won an honour or not. Nehme1499 18:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, 'reliable' does not mean 'perfect' - and if other sources out there give him the honour, then we can assume Soccerway is an omission. GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

EFL Trophy in statistics

I was just looking at Arsenal's Matt Smith's page and I was wondering, do we count the EFL Trophy/Pizza Trophy appearances as part of their "Other" appearances in the stats box (not the infobox)? I ask as I was there for him captaining Arsenal against Northampton 2 days ago and I noticed the stats didn't reflect the appearances in a senior competition. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Akaif it should go under Other. Nehme1499 13:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
But for Arsenal U21 (or whatever the relevant age group is), not Arsenal. See e.g. Demarai Gray's Leicester stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes of course. U21 stats should not be included. Nehme1499 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
U21 stats should be included in the case of Premier League U21 teams competing in the EFL Trophy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I so agree with CTD. EFL Trophy is a senior competition and we include senior competitions (regardless if it's amateur or professional) on the table. Dr Salvus 14:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I've seen a few pages in the past where they have their under aged team stats included, obviously in a separate row. I presume the current table on Matt Smith is fine as it is right now. Can't seem to think the "Pizza Trophy" actually exists or not because I have not heard of that and we don't have an article about it. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I think "Pizza Trophy" was an informal reference to the current sponsored naming (Papa Johns Trophy). Nehme1499 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
EFL Trophy stats should go in 'other' for all players, and in an entry for the U21 team for those players. GiantSnowman 18:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the OT, why do reserve teams play in a separate league (which seems to be an additional youth league) instead of in the senior leagues of the English football pyramid (as it's done in Spain, France, Portugal etc.)? Dr Salvus 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Because England is not the continent, there are too many established clubs in the pyramid to shoehorn reserve teams in. By the way @Iggy the Swan: "Pizza Trophy" is a reference to the current sponsor. Same as the EFL Cup used to be known as the "Beer Cup" when sponsored by Carling. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: you could equally word the question as "why do reserve teams play in the senior leagues of the football pyramid in Spain, France, Portugal etc instead of in a separate league?" Different countries' league systems developed differently. Reserve teams of top teams in England did once play alongside the first teams of other clubs (eg see here), but it was decades before the idea of a "football pyramid" emerged. I don't know why all the reserve teams ultimately got shunted into their own separate leagues, but they did....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the reserve teams (which dominated the Southern League from 1920 until 1939, for example) were sometimes almost as strong as the parent club's senior teams, and (not being eligible to join the Football League) competed at the next level down, and so they squeezed out some of the worthy first teams that weren't quite good enough for the Football League. This being the case, they were excluded from the major non-leagues: for example, there were no reserve teams in the Southern League after 1960. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond you on the reversed question. It seems they prefer making reserves play in "pyramid leagues" so they could learn how to play against a lot more seasoned players. That's why I don't like Premier League 2. (However, in Italy we're unfortunately used to use their and youth sectors' players for capital gains). If you go down past the Serie D or in youth teams, you could find a lot of reserve teams (that have a few players aged 15–16) playing in the same group of their first teams. There used to be a league similar to the Premier League 2 in Italy until the 1970s, the Campionato de Martino. Dr Salvus 11:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

EFL Trophy (and the scottish challenge cup, as they recently copied the efl torphy with a group stage plus spl reserve teams being it making it a clone of the efl trophy now) count as official competitive appearances and are counted on both soccerbase and soccerway. plus itd be silly to count them for the pro team players but not the youth team players in the same exact matches. a similar situation is all the reserve teams playing in lower leagues like barcelona b. difference being only the relevant cup counts rather than any reserve appearances. i also remember the bbc doing an article mentioning that andy lonergan made his 400th appearence but when you looked at his stats he had 3 appearences for u21 teams in the efl trophy and take away and hes 399 not at 402. so even sites like bbc count them as official apperences. at least its usually just 3 games a year, not 50 games a year like barca b so its not really stat padding or anyting.Muur (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Eh, no. England copied Scotland. The Scottish League Cup reinstated a group stage in 2016–17 with the format announced in December 2015, six months before the EFL announced the format for the EFL Trophy. The EFL Trophy is effectively a hybrid of the Scottish League Cup/Challenge Cup as Premiership teams have been allowed to field U20s teams (the age range has varied) since 2016. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The BBC (and others) can do whatever they want. The EFL Trophy is a senior competition and we have always included senior competitions stats onto the table. So, tables should have the EFFL Trophy stats with the U21s sides, full stop. Dr Salvus 09:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_156&oldid=1137383099"