Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 161

Adrian Popa
Senior career*
Years	Team
2012-2017	Steaua București
20??-20??	Other teams
2021-2023	Steaua București
	*Club domestic league appearances and goals

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

Archive 155

←

→

Newport County A.F.C. squad list

On the article, there is a key bit for confirmed to be released and contract negotiations! I've never seen that before and wasn't sure what to make of it. But does it not in a way breach WP:RECENTISM?? Not to mention the characters used seem a bit odd in context to use. Govvy (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed the symbols to more suitable/accessible ones. I have no opinion on denoting this sort of thing. Arguably displaying the current squad at all is recentism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me a good solution. Better than having listed a player who the club has announced is being released and then edit wars if to remove him already or to wait a few weeks. --SuperJew (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Your change looks a lot better, looked very odd before the other way. Still it's not a bad way to show whats going on with a squad. First time I've seen that. Govvy (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have done something similar at Bradford City for the past few seasons, using an asterisk. Giant Snowman 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Marignane Gignac Côte Bleue

Hello. Recently I've been having trouble choosing -- what should the common name of Marignane Gignac Côte Bleue FC be for putting in infoboxes? The club was founded as a merger from Marignane Gignac FC and FC Côte Bleue last year, so it's a fairly recent name. Any help is appreciated. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure for the new common name, but for someone like Kassim Abdallah, I would separate the stats between the original club and the new merged club, as a two-club merger (forming a brand new club) is different than a simple team name change (still the same single club). RedPatch (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

FC MGCB is bolded in the article. That would fit in an infobox! It might even be worth a redirect. See also this. Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Done. @Nfitz: That just seems to be an abbreviation, like Stade Rennais F.C. is SRFC. Also, it's MGCB FC. I'm leaning between either "Marignane Gignac CB", "Marignane GCB", and "Marignane Gignac Côte Bleue" right now. The latter seems to be the most appropriate but it's just so long. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose the abbreviation normally - but it is indeed a very long. The abbreviation is surely unique. <joke>Could simply call them "Côte Bleue" - which translates as undercooked prime rib</joke> Nfitz (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Persistent reverts at Thomas Tuchel

Someone is insistent on reverting a part of Thomas Tuchel's bio because they presumably think their Nan is a better manager than him. I've mentioned that the content is well sourced and not old, but obviously that made no difference. Comes off as wp:podium to me.

Is it grounds enough to semi-protect the page?

The most recent of some 5 odd reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Tuchel&diff=prev&oldid=1158998453 Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have listed the article at WP:RPP. I also placed a notice at the talk page of the latest IP address, but that may be futile since it seems they are IP-hopping. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2000 CECAFA Cup

2000 CECAFA Cup has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Birth date of George Raitt

Just wondering if anyone could point me to a definitive source that confirms the birth date of George Raitt, who was born in Scotland around 1888. Hack (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's definitely 14 August 1888, if you look down this source far enough, you will see the date they said he was born. It is already used as source [1] in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for something that doesn't look like some guy's blog. Hack (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually looking at it again, I recognise this does seem more likely to be a blog instead of websites run by professionals. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure I could confirm it from documents on Ancestry, which I expect would put it at the Memoriam date, but I know that's not really what you're looking for. in terms of a ref...? Crowsus (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Had a quick spy and yeah there is a shipping manifest from a trip back to the UK with his wife in 1959 giving that exact date (he left Plymouth for Melbourne in March 1913 on a ship called the Niagara, if that's of any interest). Happy to add the link in if you deem it suitable, but obviously and a primary source and stuck behind a paywall. Crowsus (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with using primary sources or paywall being an issue for something like this; especially as there are Ancestry accounts available through Wikipedia Library, so verification by another user can be done. Presumably his birth record is available from Scotlands People - yeah, there's only one George Raitt from that time period - George Peters Raitt - so if that is what is on the original, then his middle name is Peters not Peter; and the approximate location is northwest Glasgow. But without paying £1.50, it's not possible to see the record itself, and other details, other than the 1888 birth year; the birth certificate itself can be obtained for £12 + shipping. Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY only applies to living people, not deceased... Giant Snowman 21:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Nfitz:.

The Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages registry and newspaper obituaries have his age at death in June 1960 as 72, which doesn't tally with an August 1888 date of birth. Hack (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, User:Hack. Looking in Ancestry, his March 1959 shipping record from arriving by sea in London says 14.8.88. The 1901 Scotland census says he was 12 on census day (March 31, 1901). His March 14, 1913 sailing from Plymouth to Australia says he was 24. Those are all consistent with an August 1888 birth, but none are consistent with an age of 72 in June 1960. Switching to Find My Past ... ah, his September 1959 shipping record from London back to Australia also says 14.8.88. I think that clinches it, without having to spend the £12.

In my own genealogical research, I've found that when the death is reported, that the person reporting the death doesn't necessarily give correct birth information. Personally, when I reported my grandmother's death in England, you stand at the counter and fill in the form with the info; stuff isn't checked. I hope we got her birth date info correct, but the place of birth was a bit of a guess! Nfitz (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I'm interested because, if the date of birth is correct, Raitt would probably be the oldest Australia national team debutant. Hack (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Naturalised international footballers

There is an unreferenced article: List of naturalised international footballers and a category: Naturalised association football players. Is this for players who represented multiple nations at full senior level or for youth teams to senior teams? Echetus Xe 11:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No need for either, we already have List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Naturalised is slightly different to played for 2 countries (if I'm a British citizen and gained US citizenship and then played for US national team, I'd be a naturalised international, but not played for 2 countries), but I don't think we need both. Two national teams is much more encylopedic, as it refers to footballing nationalities. Whereas naturalised international footballers is conflating citizenships with footballing nationalities. And the naturalised article is unsourced- to source it, you'd need sources that they gained citizenship as well as who they played for. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the categorisation for naturalised players seems to include way more players than the article. Which means one of them is doing it wrong/they're using different definitions of naturalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The answer to EchetusXe's question is "neither". List of naturalised international footballers covers players who represented a national team after becoming a naturalised citizen of the country. There's no requirement to have played for another national team at any level. Emmanuel Olisadebe, for example, only ever played for Poland, not his native Nigeria, and Elkeson only played for China, not his native Brazil (his columns are the wrong way round!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Máximo Perrone

Hello! Should he be credited with winning CL when it appears he didn't play in a single match there in the season? I am asking because in another similar case (was about super cups) WP had decided that winning the trophy shouldn't be added in the Honours' section if the player never played in the tournament. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

He was involved in the matchday squad for the final. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Season articles not displaying the correct table

See 1896–97 Blackpool F.C. season and beyond, for example. The subject team is not listed in the main table. I don't know how widespread the issue is. Seasider53 (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I've fixed it. The issue was caused by Wikidroid 2000 removing "|section=First Division" from the First Division table. Unfortunately it looks like they may have done this for several other seasons. Wikidroid, could you fix this issue please? Cheers, Number 5 7 10:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57: Should be fixed now. I've added it to all seasons up to the 1959–60 season, which is currently the last season before they start using their own articles.

Wikidroid 2000 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

RETB?

In the 1898-99 season there is this team RETB that competed in Thames & Midway league, who is this RETB? What's the full team name? Anyone know? Regards, Govvy (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Royal Engineers Training Battalion, based in Chatham, Kent (also note it's Thames and Medway, not Midway) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Aaa, okay, btw, it's my autocorrect it keeps changing Medway to Midway for some reason! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help with updation of infobox jersey

India national football team and India women's national football team jersey has been changed with new patterns, men's & women's]. Will be a great help if someone update the infobox jersey with the same pattern and colour. Thank you.Drat8sub (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Amendment to football position updater

Hey, the infobox for Harrow Borough F.C. says they were relegated, but they've actually been reprieved. The field is updated via the season updater template - I was considering just manually overriding it, but that would mean it would likely not get an update next summer. Plus there may be other sides where this is an issue. So can the field be updated while leaving the template in place? Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the updater for Harrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

FC Cincinnati

After a wikibreak, I was intrigued to see that FC Cincinnati (2016–18) was merged into FC Cincinnati in March 2023 after limited discussion by the user who most vociferously opposed treating the clubs separately back when the original consensus was found in 2018. While consensus can change, no MLS team was directly promoted into the league, and FC Cincinnati is now the only MLS team without separate articles for the MLS team and the minor league team of the same name (Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Montréal Impact, Nashville FC, Minnesota United, and Orlando City, so it is not a limited number of teams - San Jose Earthquakes also have a separate NASL page.)

The question I'm posing - is this a problem? It's definitely causing issues with categories, for instance the year the club was founded, and the article currently implies the team was promoted. I'm only bringing this up because I would favour an un-merge. I also don't know why this is the only MLS team that insists that it's different? SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

While there are some valid points made in the nomination, it doesn't seem to line up with what has changed with the merge. The article does not include player statistics from the USL era, and the player list articles are still separated. I think the move was too hastily done, but would make sense with some more work. Sounder Bruce 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Current season" and kits in club articles

I see that some featured articles and good articles (Real Madrid CF, FC Bayern Munich, Manchester City F.C., Chelsea F.C.) are still linking to the 2022–23 season articles and showing 2022–23 season kits. Is there a consensus on when to update links to the upcoming seasons? PS: Some mix alt kits from the previous season with the main kit for the new season. SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the season, that has been discussed above recently. Seasider53 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's misleading to link to a season that is over and to a season that hasn't started. So, what to do? SLBedit (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In past years, we have used June 30 as the end of one season, with 1 July marking the start of the next (when, in the EFL at least, non-retained players are officially out-of-contract and can sign with other clubs). On that basis, the current season has not yet finished. Paul W (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

When does the season end?

It seems a little illogical that we have managerial changes listed at 2023–24 EFL League Two#Managerial changes that took place before the playoffs for the 2022-23 season had even started. And I appreciate it seems that this has always been the case, looking at previous seasons.

For players, contracts end at the end of June, and "pre-season" starts when they return to training some time in June/early July (depending on the club. So how can May 8th be described as "pre-season" for the 2023-24 season? Gricehead (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it ends after the final whistle is blown; or at least once they've all left the pitch. The change took effect after the club's final game of the season. The previous managerial changes for that club were only listed a week earlier at 2023–24 EFL League Two#Managerial changes. Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That's all changed now too. It used to be 30 June, but we've since decided it's whenever people decide to make changes to articles, infoboxes, navboxes or templates. Could all change next season, though, so beware. Seasider53 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It should be 30 June... Giant Snowman 18:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I get why people are including the prior to July changes as the next season will be the first season they are in charge. I get your "Pre-season" comment though for the position in table. Maybe it could be changed to "Prior to season" since pre-season insinuates its during their season preparation training. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

june 30. which includes loan players leaving their loan team.Muur (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This archived discussion explains certain things won't come into effect till 1 July, as well as the existence of text among certain club articles which, as Muur points out, says 30 June for some loan deals.

Having that in mind, some managerial changes may be in the wrong articles but that theme has been going on for years, e.g. in the 2019–20_EFL_Championship, it would appear eight managers left their clubs before 1 July which might have been considered as some event for the previous season. I can also see the template for the English football updater has changed so the top of certain articles have the updated divisions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For most clubs, the current season is over, but the upcoming season hasn't started yet. So, I would say 30 June. SLBedit (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, but I have a follow-up question: What about international tournaments of national teams during June/July?
e.g. Are goals scored in the Concacaf Gold Cup (24 June – 16 July 2023) counted for the 2022/23 or 2022/24 season? The same question would also apply to UEFA EURO and Copa America 2024 (14 June – 14 July 2024).

My question mainly relates to the Gerd Müller Trophy, which has been awarded since 2022 (for the 2021/22 Season) for the most goals scored (club + national) per season and how this is statistically counted. Miria~01 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the standard has been on past articles. I don't understand why we're trying to create hypothetical situations here. Seasider53 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind the question. I have now counted all of R. Lewandowski's international goals in the years 2021–2022 myself and the three goals in the UEFA Euro 2020 (in June 2021) were not counted for the Geld Müller Trophy 2022 for the 2021/22 season. Miria~01 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

International stats should be recorded by calendar year, not by season. – Pee Jay 12:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Referring Govvy here, to get them off my talk page. Seasider53 (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well that's pretty dam rude editing, last time I will post to your page. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of managerial changes, I see no issue with listing for example a managerial change that occurs on 15 June on the following season page. While technically it occurred this season, the purpose of the change is for next season. If a manager was hired on 15 June, you wouldn't say he was one of their managers for 22-23. The purpose of the change is for the following season. If I want to look back and see which teams got a new manager the previous season, it makes sense to have it like this. Even though the season technically begins 1 July, in spirit these changes are being made in advance for the next season before 1 July, not for the currently concluding/concluded season. We need to be less hell-bent on rules, and more on the spirit of the rules RedPatch (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from an American perspective (as our playoffs system also muddles this), the definition is usually when the team has played their last competitive fixture. In MLS, some teams will post their offseason roster decisions as soon as they're eliminated from playoff contention, well before the final rounds of the MLS Cup Playoffs. Sounder Bruce 23:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Welsh in introduction

Please could people keep an eye on articles edited by MateusPumHeol - by inserting the nationality in articles of footballers who were born in another country has happened twice by the same user such as Charlie Savage (footballer). Especially as two edits have stood for a week. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also notified the user about the recent edits as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

I'll ask this question although this may not be the best place for this kind of questions. I have been thinking of translating some it.wiki articles about early 20th-century Italian football for ages. Unfortunatley, the majority of the sources of the articles I wish to translate come from books I can't access. Should I trust what the article reads? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wikipediæ philosophia Have you got any notable examples from that pool of articles? Oltrepier (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

it:Juventus Italia and it:Storia della Juventus Football Club. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sevilla's UEL win came after local midnight

I have a very unusual question. By the time this year's UEL final ended, midnight had already passed. Should we say Sevilla won the cup on 31 May or on 1 June? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I personally would say/write Sevilla won the cup in the night between 31 May and 1 June, since a football match has duration and doesn't happen in a single second, but, if one has to pick a specific day, I would pick 31 May, since Wikipedia uses UTC time zone as its main time zone. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say based on the local time where the game was played. --SuperJew (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely local time. Definitely not UTC - by that logic we would be writing that anything that happened in Australia prior to 10.00 in the morning actually happened on the previous day....... Re: a football match has duration and doesn't happen in a single second, that is obviously true, but the act of winning the match happens in a single second, when the referee blows the whistle to end it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You would add the day the game started, not the next day. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what you are saying in any given part of the article. The match started on 31 May. Sevilla won and lifted the trophy on 1 June. Per MOS:NUM, An overnight period may be expressed using a slash between two contiguous dates ... or use an en dash. Ie- we should be referring to the match (as a whole) as having taken place on 31 May / 1 June or 31 May – 1 June. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't like this idea, it'd be too long. What about writing one of the two dates and specifying the match was played in two different days (and months) inside a Efn note? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you give the context you want to specify the match in? --SuperJew (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

An example of what could be written: "On 1 June 2023, Sevilla won their seventh Europa League [...]. After the period of the sentence, we write inside the Efn: "The match had commenced/initiated on 31 May, but finished after local midnight." Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say in the context of that specific wording, 1 June would be correct. They did not win the trophy on 31 May. Agreed, though, the footnote would be really useful -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how much of this is a technicality, and I feel most media will use 31 May either way, which is what we should be checking as we rely on sources. There isn't much sourcing yet as it's still too close, but you can see Reuters, Anadolu, Le Monde, Arab News, DAZN, Euro News, SI, Japan Times, Yahoo! all use "Wednesday", while AP News is the only one I saw using "Thursday" (and uses "Wednesday" too). --SuperJew (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now, I want to point out a bigger problem: Gianluca Mancini scored an own goal on the 31st and might have failed his penalty after midnight. Let's assume the penalty was failed on the 1st: what should we write in Mancini's article? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Even though the match ended on a different day to when it kicked off, I would still say they won the tournament on May 31st. That is the day the match was scheduled for; the fact that it finished after midnight is pretty irrelevant. – Pee Jay 13:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I totally agree with this statement. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that. Kante4 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A game scheduled on a day and played on that day is won for that day. What's so hard for that? Don't know why you guys are being so finical. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Finical? – Pee Jay 13:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Another term for finicky. Seasider53 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I know, it's not like there's actual guidance for what to do in this circumstance.... Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Amateur football

Would we include amateur goals in articles? For example, in lists such as this or this? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding the list of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals, which is about the inclusion of Vivian Woodward, as one can see in the edit history, I am under the impression his inclusion is perfectly explained both by the sources and their notes, and also in the article. What do other football editors think about this? Regarding the list of footballers with 500 or more goals, I cannot say anything since I couldn't carry less about that article, as I have said many times in the past. My last and final contribution there was this. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The note you mention, and which you yourself wrote, says the following: "... all matches for the Amateur side were considered official internationals for their respective opponents. With the English Football Association counting the statistics separately for the professional England team and England amateurs". So, according to literally you, England/The FA themselves don't even consider Woodward's goals to be counted. The sources included don't actually offer any explanation. The BBC, an actual reliable source, say "The centre-forward notched up 29 goals in 23 full international appearances for England but local historian Norman Jacobs counts an additional 57 goals scored for England Amateurs and another four in England games also not recognised officially by the FA". Explain again why amateur goals should be included? It's not a "list of RSSSF goals", by the way. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kesha here; if the sources don't count it, neither should we. Giant Snowman 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Vivian Woodward was actually included because the sources had included him first. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Did you check the external links of the article, as suggested? Apart from RSSSF, is also IFFHS unreliable according to you? There are two major football statistics organizations, and being unreliable according to you, I am sorry, but that's not good enough reason. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

ESPN, Sky Sports, UEFA, Talksport, BBC, Telegraph, Eurosport, The Guardian, The Independent, FIFA. You know, reliable sources. I could include 50 more if you want. None of which say Vivian Woodward is the record holder. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! None of these is a statistical source, however neither the WP article claims Vivian Woodward to be the record holder, because the English FA doesn't count the goals for the amateur England football team at that time as official senior internationals, because they had two teams (an amateur and a professional one), but the opponent FAs do (well, except for them who also had two teams, i.e. other NTs from Great Britain where football was more developed than the rest countries). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are called "reliable sources", which you can read about here. One or two sources showcasing another theory is called a "fringe theory", which you can read about here; long story short, "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RBFA,

KNVB - OnsOranje,

MLSZ,

SvFF,

DFB,

SFV,

DBU,

SPL,

FFF

The opposing federations as a source itself are probably more decisive.

Just a small note that the official match reports can be viewed on the websites of the opposing federations and coincide with statistical evaluations of the RSSSF and IFFHS.

These federations see the matches against the England amateurs as representatives of England and most of them call this team simply "England" as well and do not make any distinction here.

Thus, the goals scored by their national players against them are also listed in their rankings as official goals in official matches and the results achieved (goals conceded, wins/losses/draws) are naturally listed in their overall official international balance sheet. In no statistics are defeats/wins by "England" (as England amateurs) subtracted from their overall international balance sheet.That the FA lists Harry Kane as their official top scorer is no contradiction to the fact that Vivian Woodward's goals are scored in official Senior A international matches. Miria~01 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I've not disputed that the respective federations consider those games full internationals for their nations. Do those federations consider it a full international for England? Do the FA consider it a full international? Do any reliable sources consider it a full international for England? Do any reliable sources beyond two niche statistics websites consider Vivien Westwood as England's leading goalscorer? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

England national amateur football team results (1906–1939) had 106 matches (7 as Great Britain at the Olympics):

47 matches against 10 football associations, which the associations classify as official

(Belgium 9x, Denmark 6x, Finland 1x, France 8x, Germany 4x, Hungary 1x, Netherlands 9x, Norway 1x, Sweden 5x, Switzerland 3x)

59 matches against 5 football associations, which the associations classify as unofficial

England (Pro) 2x, Ireland 23x, Scotland 9x, South Africa 1x, Wales 23x)

---> Thus, the majority of associations recognize these as official and we also take into account their international goals in these matches in the statistics. So why should it only apply to the opposing players and not vice versa in the same game for the English Amateurs ?! As I wrote in the discussion Talk:List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals of the article, it should be this one and only special exception. Miria~01 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition: And only the goals in these official matches against these 10 associations are taken into account!

In the games of the England Amateurs, only the total of 46 goals are counted for Vivian Woodward, which he scored against Belgium (9), Denmark (1), Finland (1), France (8), Germany (3), Hungary (2), Netherlands (13), Sweden (4) and Switzerland (5). England Amateurs' matches and goals against England(Pro), Ireland, Wales, Scotland and South Africa are not taken into account. Miria~01 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2013 CECAFA Cup

2013 CECAFA Cup has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

bot request for updating footballer categories

Hello. A few days ago, based on this RfC, a request was filed for bot to update all the (1,138) categories that fall under the following types:

Category:Footballers in "country" to Category:Men's footballers in "country" (eg: Category:Footballers in Andorra → Category:Men's footballers in Andorra) and all the articles in these categories
Category:"nationality" footballers to Category:"nationality" men's footballers (eg: Category:Andorran footballers → Category:Andorran men's footballers) and all the articles in these categories
Category:Expatriate footballers in "country" to Category:Expatriate men's footballers in "country" (eg: Category:Expatriate footballers in Andorra → Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Andorra) and all the articles in these categories
Category:Footballers in "country" by club to Category:Men's footballers in "country" by club (eg: Category:Footballers in Andorra by club → Category:Men's footballers in Andorra by club) and all the articles in these categories
Category:"nationality" expatriate footballers to Category:"nationality" men's expatriate footballers (eg: Category:Andorran expatriate footballers → Andorran expatriate men's footballers) and all the articles in these categories

Subcategories will not be changed. There are some variations/exceptions when "soccer", "soccer players", and conventions set by some countries are used. All these exceptions, new content of the categories, and other relevant information can be found at User:Usernamekiran/footballer categories. I have created the program/bot for this task successfully. Kindly let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions. I will file a request for bot in a few days from now. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Western Football League

A series of IPs (probably the same person) are repeatedly removing the "more citations needed" tag, the inclusion of which in my opinion is valid as all of the important content (member clubs, list of champions) is not sourced. Could some more people keep an eye on it........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

An apt sponsor (present company excluded). Seasider53 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, didn't realise it was still going for that long. I might have a few book sources, citations I can add to the page. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Transclude section

It doesn't seem to be working at 2022–23 in Lebanese football#2023 Intercontinental Cup, as the "Final" section shows the Group stage. Can someone please help? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I think i fixed it. Kante4 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Try here

Indian Super League, remaining part has several space/comma/grammar errors. Besides, "see also" has multiple overlinks. I tried but its locked and users careless. Many thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161570920 93.140.148.242 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

england/japan u21 training game

not sure if this should count as an official match for u21 caps or not? https://www.englandfootball.com/articles/2023/Jun/10/england-mens-under-21s-japan-match-report-20230610 world football, which is seemingly the best source for youth internationals doesnt count it but it kinda feels weird not to count this match? i do notice a guy already counted it as far as i can tell, i.e. someoen added this cap for James Trafford as his fifth caps but should it count? training match means prob not? but like, it could prob also be fair to say it counts as a cap? i recall not too long ago canada had a trianing senior match that didnt count as official caps tho i guess?Muur (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If sources do not class it as official, then it is not, and should not be counted. Giant Snowman 07:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

the only place talking about it is the official england website that says its a training game i guess world football and other similar sites omitting it counts as what you said?Muur (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if nobody is counting it and the FA says it's training, it's not a game for us to care about. Giant Snowman 18:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Football Transfers

Where can I find which sources are considered reliable for football transfers? I've found in old threads that transfermarkt is considered unreliabe so which would be the best sources for finding all the transfers made by one team during a season? MinoTarui (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

if theyre a notable team theyll have a season article and with transfermarket it shouldnt be hard to track down a second source if you find them saying a team signed a guy on a certain day etc just google the team name the player name and signs for or somethingMuur (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Youri Tielemans

Would someone mind reverting this edit at Youri Tielemans? He doesn't actually become a Villa player until 1 July, and I'm on three reverts. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What part of that edit do you think is wrong? Nothing about it says he is a Villa player before 1 July. Not even the "current team" in the infobox was changed. --SuperJew (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't add clubs to the infobox until the player's contract has started. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Why not? What is wrong with the information? --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the objective of the infobox is to summarise the article. The Youri Tielemans article has the sourced prose On 10 June 2023, Premier League club Aston Villa announced that they had reached an agreement to sign Tielemans on a free transfer, upon the expiry of his Leicester City contract on 1 July. As this is in the article, it should appear in the infobox too. --SuperJew (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the future has not yet come to pass. Matty is correct - we should not be listing the new club until 1 July. Giant Snowman 20:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We have reliable sources to say he will join Villa in one week. If in some freak circumstance he winds up not joining them despite having signed a contract to do so, just delete it from the infobox, but as it is 99.9999999999% certain that he will join Villa next week, I don't see a problem with listing them in the infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The same should also apply to Jude Bellingham, see Talk:Jude_Bellingham#PLEASE_READ! where the transfer involved two different countries, as well as other people who are involving in similar situations.

Obviously, Wikipedia should not be seen as what people see in the future, that could be incorrect in certain situations. I think I am going to undo the changes on Bellingham post recent IP edit since earlier versions says 1 July, as in the semi-protected Tielemans article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Which this edit got reverted after I informed you about re the Bellingham article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted it back and semi protected it for a week. Otherwise we'll be doing this all week. The 81 IP is the same person as the 86 one on a highly dynamic IP, by the way, so I think semi-protection is the way to go. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yann Aurel Bisseck

Hello! Can anyone watch over this article, please? It seems like someone tried to edit it amid speculation on his possible transfer to Inter Milan, but obviously there's no official press release...

Oltrepier (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated links in templates

Can someone please explain to Pindrice that MOS:REPEATLINK does not apply to templates and tables? See this edit. I explained to them that it's standard to keep the links, as can be seen in other major tournament articles such as 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group A, yet their answers on my talk page (User talk:Nehme1499#2023 SAFF Championship) seem quite aggressive. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain to this user that repeating the same lins more than 15 times is not helpul for the raeder ? For this tournament there is only one stadium ! So can someone can explain to me if what extent is it helpul for the reader to have the SAME more than 12 times ? "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers," this is the rule : in what extent is it helpful ? Pindrice (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it not helpful in this case? Seasider53 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I could see it being helpful to include the links once in different sections eg- Stadium, Group stage and Knock-out stage but apart from that, I'd agree with Pindrice that it's not needed 12+ times. It also doesn't matter how it's been done on a different article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd argue that the World Cup article doesn't need it linked every time either, particularly where the same stadia are used across individual groups. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland, what is the topic area consensus on that kind of linking? Even though OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, consensus would hold weight here. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think it's been brought up before, project-wide anyway. Some pages I edit use fewer links and some use more but I would say the ones that use more overall are more common. This has come from the natural WP:BRD cycle though so I think it's better to actually discuss policy and our application of policy rather than just simply saying 'We've always done it this way'. If the policy is that we shouldn't link every single time then we should be asking 'Why are we doing that?' and 'Is that best for users/editors?' Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been against this whole anti-repeating vendetta. I really don't understand the harm in repeating, and for the user who is reading that part, especially when it's in matches for example where there is a high probability a user is reading only about their team or a specific match that happened today, why do they have to scroll up to click the link (or even know there is a link)? When it's prose there's a bit more merit saying the reader will most likely be reading all of the paragraph, but still I don't see the harm. --SuperJew (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, not everyone reads every paragraph so repeating links from one section to the next is definitely helpful (and compatible with MOS:REPEATLINK). Does it need to be included three or four times in the same section? Probably not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So what I'm saying is that when we have football box templates, I would treat each match as a separate paragraph, since there is a high probability a user will look only at one match (the one relevant to their team or the current day). --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 SAFF GrA.png

For collapsible football boxes, I 100% agree because there is no guarantee the reader will open the one which contains the link if they aren't all linked. I would disagree for football boxes which aren't collapsed. The image on the left shows the article Nehme + Pendrice have been discussing and even if you're just looking at one team's results specifically, I doubt you would miss the only link to the stadium when looking at Group A. It is a bit different on a mobile device, I can get three of the six matches on the screen of my phone at the same time (different devices and resolutions will differ) but, at the very least, I will scroll past it. If I am only looking at Group B however, I could easily miss it (mobile or desktop) so it would be useful to be linked in Group B as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So basically it's also a question of screen resolution, size, and format in this case. I'm not sure we have a minimum that we know will be displayed or it's better to assume there might be a user (say on a phone with big text for old people / people hard of sight) who would see only one match on the screen. --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a good point. Perhaps the policy as a whole needs revisited and amended. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SJ, there is nothing wrong with repeating the link, especially as readers will likely be looking for a specific match, rather than all matches. RedPatch (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Victoria United FC (Opopo)

I just accepted this stub at AfC and cleaned it up as the club were promoted to the top flight of Cameroonian football, but the title needs to be moved - Opopo is the club's nickname. However, there are already two other Victoria United F.C.s on Wikipedia - Victoria United and Victoria United F.C.. What's the best title for this article? It's actually not impossible that it might be the primary topic if Victoria United are still defunct. SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The convention is to put the country name in brackets, in this case Victoria United FC (Cameroon) with the Scottish club moving to Victoria United F.C. (Scotland). I would also move the Canadian team to Victoria United (Canada) and making Victoria United a DAB page. Maybe best to do this as a bundled RM. RedPatch (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and create a RM here. RedPatch (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

Seems like some IP-disruption is starting up again, more eyes would be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Dude. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation

Why is this a reliable source? I've never edited this website nor do I know it deeply, but it looks user-generated. Anyone could request to be able to edit such website. User-generated websites are not reliable. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not user generated, only members can edit. RSSSF also provides certain data to FIFA (FIFA Century Club PDF; last page: "The Men's Century Club was compiled with the help of Roberto Mamrud (worldwide) [an RSSSF member] and RSSSF 1998/2023". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone could be member of RSSSF if they apply... The only difference is that the aspiring member requires an approval. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thus not making it user generated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying RSSSF is user-generated because anyone can apply to become a member is like saying BBC News is user-generated because anyone can apply for a job as a reporter there........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to give more insight here, since a member of this foundation. This is not user generated. No one can add a line in this website without cross verification from multiple sources. If say I am giving a information about a match, players, coaches, goalscorer, cards, referee, I need to give the reference/source, then it will be cross checked by other highly experienced statisticians and members like Roberto or Karl and it will be published. Websites like 11v11, soccerway or gsa etc are not like this, can be added info easily. I work with Roberto and trust me we cross check multiple times. Thank you, and you can trust RSSSF. Drat8sub (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 UEFA European Under-19 Championship

Hello everyone!

Just so you know, I've created the squads page for the tournament, as all of the national teams involved are unveiling their respective lists.

Oltrepier (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Shearer infobox

whats up with his weird ass looking infobox it looks nothing like other playerMuur (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)s

The {{Infobox football biography}} template is embedded in the {{Infobox person}} template, in order to allow for parameters such as "honorific_suffix", "occupation", "spouse", "children". Unsure why this choice was made. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The change was made way back in 2017 with this edit by Jmorrison230582, who is still active so may have some insight into the thinking behind the change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't think of any obvious reason why that has been modified in the first place. The only two footballers I can think of which has different infobox styles are Vinnie Jones who became a British actor and Adam Johnson (footballer) for the use of parameters not found in the footballer infobox. You have Ian Wright as a pundit and Alex Scott (footballer, born 1984) as a TV presenter but those infoboxes have not changed appearances. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree these infoboxes should be changed back just to standard footballer. Giant Snowman 18:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2012 CECAFA Cup

2012 CECAFA Cup has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hoffenheim

Hello. Looking for input in this discussion. It's about the WP:COMMONNAME of TSG 1899 Hoffenheim - I think that it's incorrect that we're still writing "1899 Hoffenheim" in infobxes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote in the discussion to the article, TSG Hoffenheim should be the preferred name. It is equivalent of using Bayer Leverkusen instead of Bayer 04 Leverkusen as the common name in wikipedia.

From a German point of view, the term TSG Hoffenheim is used much more. The club itself operates its official social media channels (twitter: (https://twitter.com/tsghoffenheim) , instagram: (https://www.instagram.com/tsghoffenheim/) under this name, the same for its official homepage (https://www.tsg-hoffenheim.de/). In the German media, the abbreviation TSG Hoffenheim is used also for most tables, such as here: from website of the German Football Association DFB (https://www.dfb.de/bundesliga/spieltagtabelle/) or the organisation for the first two division of the German Leagues DFL (https://www.bundesliga.com/de/bundesliga/tabelle) itself. Miria~01 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Miria~01: But you must ask yourself, what is the WP:COMMONNAME in English? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Miria~01: Let's try to work to make sure that TSG Hoffenheim is at the very least the new norm for Hoffenheim-related articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

fix incorrect move

hello, a user who moved University of Bolton Stadium to Toughsheet Community Stadium but did it wrong. youre supposed to move the page, not turn the first one into a redirect and then make the new page. that loses all teh history of the old page and so now the new page has no history. could someone with the powers to fix it fix it, since i cant due to the fact i cant move a move to a page that already exists. he also did it a day earlier than he shoudldve...Muur (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's sorted, RM now open. Giant Snowman 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

UEFA reports

I don't really get it why user @Stevie fae Scotland: has been using a different style for UEFA reports, starting from this section. Same for Conference League. Is 2023–24 so special compared to ALL the previous? Classic links, as normally made, must be used. Island92 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page of the Champions League article, per WP:CITE and WP:LINKROT I've change bare URLs to citations. Further to that explanation, per WP:CITEVAR: If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs ... then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely. I have changed one page to meet Wikipedia policy. Just because it is the only one done that way, does not mean it is wrong. Similarly, just because numerous other pages are done a different way, doesn't mean they are right. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland is correct - all of these should be cited. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My experience with English Wikipedia matches with the fact that for All football matches I've been encountering I've always found Report, and not that new style which I cannot digest. I'm sorry, but this is out of practice and consistency.--Island92 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I added an additional bare link with the word "Report" in the Report link in the infobox, might that be an acceptable compromise? SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, no. It should appear, when you make an edit, as report = https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/2038356/ as made everywhere.--Island92 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree but for different reasons (I think it's overkill). Thank you for looking for a compromise though SportingFlyer.

I'm sorry I've made a change you don't like Island, I don't want to make your experience worse or create friction. The policy says it's generally helpful to change bare URLs into citations (slightly ironic here I guess). Adding a bare URL is a good thing, I've just tried to build on that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not because I don't like it, but rather because it is out of consistency. You are building something so many are not used to looking at. And starting with user DryandCool more others will wonder why here is different from the normality. Expect so many to use normal style. Island92 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging users really active in these kind of pages to know what they think. @S.A. Julio:, @Nehme1499:, @Pindrice:, @Kante4:, @PeeJay:, @Dl.thinker:, @Joseph2302:, @Crowsus:, @Sb008:, @Walter Görlitz:, @Riktetta:, @Tomrtn:.--Island92 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a few things to consider here. I have always found it strange that a match report (which in some cases for older/more obscure tournaments can be almost the only referenced content in the whole article) doesn't go in the Refs list - this change solves that problem. On the other hand, pages with a lot of matches would have a lot (hundreds) of refs at the bottom. It is also potentially a lot more arduous to label them correctly (which should be done to make them even slightly useful when displayed as a list. Aesthetically I would say it makes almost no difference to the reader. Crowsus (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Walter Görlitz is currently fully blocked over edit warring, therefore cannot help with this but it looks like Crowsus has been helpful here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they should be part of the refs list. It makes it easier to notice when a substandard source is being used for match information. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Proper inline references tend to be more consistently archived by the likes of the Internet Archive over bare URLs . Hack (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2023–24 1. FC Nürnberg season

Does anyone want to review Draft:2023–24 1. FC Nürnberg season? Kingjeff (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Logos on kits

Hi all, PeeJay and I have been having a disagreement over at 1992–93 Manchester United F.C. season as to whether or not the kits should have logos on them. I originally added new, updated versions of the kits as they are better visually than the old ones. PeeJay reverted due to the logos present on the kits. Kits like these are used all over Wikipedia and Wikicommons and I’m not aware of any prior consensus not to include logos, however I’d like to get others opinions rather then getting involved in a edit war. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If they exist at Commons, they should be deleted as the logos are copyrighted, so they're derivative works. Here, they should also be removed per the minimal use clause of WP:NFCC#3. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: got it, only slight issue is that literally 90%+ of kit patterns on Commons have logos like adidas and Nike etc. on them. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to update the Template Football box & Red Card info

Template:Football box and Template:Football box collapsible need to be updated with a parameter for adding card information or at least red card information like that of goals. The collapsible template however have a scope to add "sent off"' which generates the red card info, but this parameter is listed along the goal parameter which seems wrong. Red card is a very rare information, does not occur often like goals and yellow card, this information gives a more insight to a match where red card is shown and the match played with less players and have impact on the outcome. As the second template have this, it has been used in various article across the Football project, but this is creating a chaos. One can argue card information can be added separately as always been used in the World Cup or Continental Cups' sub pages (FIFA WC/Continental Groups or Final match ) where match reports are discussed in details, but these tournaments are once in a 4 years things, but for small tournament like sub-confederation tournament, friendly tournament or friendlies it not feasible to make separate group pages so that match details can be added. Thus, I think we need a separate independent parameter in the football box templates for inclusion of cards, at-least for and to produce these card info. I strongly believe this will be very good for the project since many users want to add this red card info and indeed have been used various articles till now. I hope this update idea be agreed upon by most of the members here. Kindly add your suggestions or ideas to improve or solution for this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I can't think of a single situation where it's not possible to mention a red card in prose if it's notable enough. To be frank, friendlies don't matter so I wouldn't expect much more than an overview in a club season article (doesn't mean you can't mention the fact that there was a red card in prose when discussing the team's preseason preparations). Apart from that, you can easily mention it in prose and if you want to make competition articles up to good or featured article standard, the level of prose will need to be similar to what you see for the group summaries for World Cup articles. Otherwise, the tournament is quite possibly not notable enough. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A national team match is reported and published by almost every newpaper, news website, sport website and federation website, making every match a notable one, at-least in India it is published. However, even it is notable and published from all possible newspaper I should not go on making articles on each of the friendly matches. And that's why I am suggesting this. I agree for sub-confed tournament like in Asia, SAFF/CAF/WAFF/AFF we can add the details in prose but there is no scope for friendlies, information of friendlies are kept through football boxes only in the record pages. With that logic, goals can also be described in prose, or the stadium, or the referee. And I think just one simple parameter for an essential sourced information which is a significant aspect of football match will not do any harm to the template. Drat8sub (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. The prose at 2006 FIFA World Cup Group A outlines the goals and red cards and there would be nothing stopping you from adding the stadium or referee. To me it seems like there isn't an issue here if we can detail red cards in all but that one specific scenario you've outlined. Granted, friendly internationals are more important than club friendlies but I don't see a need for listing the fairly limited number of red cards in non-competitive matches. I'll let others chip in with their two cents though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

What we should be doing is removing all yellow and red cards from the goals parameters, as they aren't goals. I agree with Stevie fae Scotland that red cards should be added in prose rather than in the match templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph and Stevie fae Scotland. Kante4 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph and Stevie fae Scotland and Kante4.--Echetus Xe 08:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Red cards do not contribute directly to the result. We've been over this many, many times. – Pee Jay 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Oman national team | Arabic speaker needed!

Hi,

If anyone speaks Arabic (or has a decent translating app), could you please update the latest squad? I would do it myself if I could!

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to link us a source here I can give it a go (I have a basic school knowledge of Arabic - at least can read the letters and decently translitarate the constanants). Though Nehme1499 would be a better editor for this :) --SuperJew (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah sure, I'd linked it on the page but it's available here. Thanks! Felixsv7 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Atalanta B.C. U23

Hello everyone! As reported by a large portion of the Italian press in recent weeks (here you are if you're looking for some examples), it seems like Atalanta is ready and set to assemble a reserve team, in a similar fashion as Juventus Next Gen. As confirmed by Serie C president Matteo Marani, B teams have been included and prioritized in the league's repechage list for next season; at the moment, Atalanta looks to be in the lead for it, as a few clubs are at risk of being excluded.

So, considering all this, I just wanted to ask if anybody already prepared a draft page for the team, while we're waiting for official news. Also, how should we organize it in comparison to the main club's page?

Oltrepier (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think there's a draft. It should be organised similarly to Juventus Next Gen. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 Right. Let me know if you're preparing one, although we still have to wait and see how the whole situation unfolds. Oltrepier (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As expected, Siena has been excluded from the third tier by the Covisoc: like I mentioned before, Atalanta are listed as the first-choice team to take their place, so new information is starting to surface about their B team.

However, due to judiciary and bureaucratic reasons, it will take at least two more weeks to make their introduction official. Should we still create a rough draft, or should we wait a little longer? Oltrepier (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "at least three more weeks"... : D Oltrepier (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Hello! I've been contributing to the project quite regularly, and while we managed to get some progress in the last year, I think the general lack of users prevents it from going even further.

I'd love to promote this challenge across the site, but how can we do it? (Well, apart from using the invite template... : D)

Oltrepier (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe adding a “events” section to the main project page where ongoing challenges are displayed would help? I personally keep forgetting that its on since there is no sort of reminder anywhere that its still active, hence my low number of submissions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019 Good idea! I actually thought there was already a section like that somewhere...

To be honest, I would create a dedicated section either on the page itself, or on the navigation template at the top, just so it doesn't get too lost in the sea of information... Even a whole new sub-page could work, as well! Oltrepier (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Daouda Peeters

In autumn 2021, he was diagnosed a neuropathy whenceforth he has been kept far from the pitch. In 2021-22, he was loaned to Standard Liège and in 2022-23, he only did some training with Juventus NG. His last Next Gen appearance was in spring 2021, while his last training session was in all likelihood in April 2023. Today, he's been loaned. Should I put 2019-2021 or 2019-2023 next to Juventus Next Gen in the infobox? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess two spells: 2019–2021 and 2022–2023. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Nehme1499: it looks like the most reasonable choice. Oltrepier (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would have done so had he not been loaned in summer 2021. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

19-21: Juventus U23

21–22: Liege

22–23: Juventus Next Gen

I don't see the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

19–(void) Juventus

19–21 Juventus U23

21–22 Standard Liège (loan)

22–23 Juventus Next Gen [alpha-letter efn]

23–24 Südtirol (loan)

You mean this? Anyway, I think he wasn't even elegible to play for the Next Gen. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

However, I think it's a bit awkward to put together in the infobox two different names for the same team. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wikipediæ philosophia Sometimes it's kind of a necessity, though: for example, Dean Lewington is technically a one-club man, because he stayed at the original Wimbledon (not to be confused with phoenix club AFC Wimbledon) when the team relocated and turned into Milton Keynes Dons.

Still, since you already included that footnote of clarification, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the same name on both the spells with the Next Gen. Oltrepier (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Demi Stokes's place of birth

I have started a discussion on Talk:Demi Stokes about another place of birth issue. Sources seem to give one place but the article says she was born in another and an IP address changed that to Dudley before I deemed that as incorrect per sources used. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Turf Moor

Hi all, what do you think of these latest changes on the Turf Moor page? Personally, aligned with the version that went through the FAC process, I would keep the "F.C." in the infobox and first paragraph. This because it's clearer and more consistent. If one reads the owner parameter, they might think the town owns the stadium instead of the football club. Also, I don't see the point in writing "Football Club" in full when F.C. also suffices. I'm also missing the point why in the first sentence of the article it's now "Burnley" without any suffix, but a few sentences later the club name is fully spelled out ("Burnley Football Club").

I left a message on the user's talk page (StarryNightSky11), but it was reverted without explanation. I find this a bit rich, since the user told that unexplained edits should be discussed. FYI, this user has not explained once why these latest edits would be an improvement.

I realise this might be a bit of a childish hassle, but I'm still interested in your opinions... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems cut and dried what makes sense, especially in this case, but we're regularly surprised here. I've made the change, especially since "Burnley Cricket Club" is included in the lede, but the reader is expected to know that "Burnley" on its own refers to the football club. Seasider53 (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2006 CECAFA Cup

2006 CECAFA Cup has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Men's footballers???

Really??? Men's footballers? Yes, it makes sense to disambiguate the sport as men's football or women's football, but the idea that the genitive can therefore be applied to participants is a total abuse of language. The footballers neither belong to nor pertain to men (or women). Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it was decided here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188#RfC: Categorise male footballers in the same way that we categorise female footballers. Not sure I agree myself, nor sure why it's taken more than a year to effect the change, but I suppose if it's the consensus then not much we can do. — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Grammatically, shouldn't it be "players of men's football" or "men/male footballers", not "men's footballers"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should. If Wikipedia is meant to be reliant on sources, what reliable source describes anyone as a 'men's footballer'? Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, there are many sources that describe them like this (irrelevant info: I am under the impression "men's" and "women's" is in American English, so you will find plenty of them). For example, IOC (undoubtedly reliable, no?): https://olympics.com/en/news/top-10-oldest-mens-professional-footballers Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be "male footballers", not "men footballers"; we don't use nouns to modify other nouns unless they are compound nouns, and men is not used as one of those. Otherwise, I fully agree, and I agree with Kevin McE that consensus only holds (correctly, in my opinion) that we shouldn't have male as the default gender. It doesn't require us to use a non-grammatical construct to do so.

However, the problem appears to extend beyond gender; for example, List of France international footballers still uses men as the default gender, but it also uses the noun "France" instead of the adjective "French"; not only is this an abuse of language, it doesn't align to the use in sources. I'm currently constructing a number of lists of articles and categories that use such non-grammatical constructs; I'll post it in WikiProject Football space and link it here when done. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Footballer titling structure. If someone is interested in changing these then I suspect an RfC would be better than an oversized CfD and a second oversized RM. Whether it would be worth including changing "France" to "French", "Armenia" to "Armenian" etc in the same RfC would be a good question; I'm not sure there is the same level of objection to the use of nouns in that context as there is to the use of nouns for gender?

If someone is, let me know and I can work on constructing lists of current titles as well as likely targets; the lists here are preliminary, and I haven't bothered to construct possible targets yet. BilledMammal (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Village Pump proposal that Amakuru refers to (for which thanks) is a discussion about removing the assumption that 'football', with no further distinction, refers to men's football. Nobody there argued in favour of this linguistic abomination as semantically or grammatically valid. It simply inherited the semantic and grammatical invalidity that already existed in categories describing people as women's footballers. Wikipedia routinely has categories Female [name of sport]ers and Male [name of sprot]ers: is there any possible reason why this should not be applied to this sport? Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! It has been discussed more than once in the past (apart from the discussion linked, I remember at least another one as well) and there were consensus about using "men's" and "women's". However, if you ask me, I, personally, also prefer "male" and "female" accordingly instead of them, but I go along with what was decided on majority. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Category:Sportsmen by sport and nationality, three sports (football, basketball and volleyball) use "men's", while the remaining 18 use "male". Maybe we need a sports-wide discussion to standardize those 3 to use "male"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A move here along the same lines failed, women/men seems to be preferred over female/male. The scope of these categories is for players of men's/women's football, not based on the sex/gender of the player, therefore changing the wording to male/female would be incorrect. The issue here seems to be the use of "footballers" – I don't think there would be the same problem with "English men's football players", or the already existing Category:Australian men's soccer players? S.A. Julio (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed - Quinn (soccer) is in various "women's soccer" categories because they play "women's soccer", not because they are a woman..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a few issues here, but the use of "footballers" isn't it, nor would switching to "football players" fix it; that would only be switching from a noun to a compound noun. The issue with using the possessive form would remain.

This is also why the fact that they play "women's soccer" doesn't fix it; the game they play belongs to women, but the players of the game don't belong to women. If we want to use that form correctly we would need to change it to "women's soccer team players". This works because "soccer team" becomes a compound noun, that is modified by the possessive noun of "women's" (the soccer team belonging to women), and in turn as a compound noun modifies the noun "players".

However, "women's soccer team players" is an awkward construction, and I believe it would be better, and more reflective of our sources, to use the more natural "female soccer players". BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest, did those complaining about the change actually comment at the RFC? Giant Snowman 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the change itself, I'm just wondering if the grammar is correct. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Dean Faithfull

This article, which is in DYK on the front page at the moment, says that while playing college soccer in the US he "started all 18 games in 2010 and anchored the team's defense, totaling a career-high seven points". This reflects what the source says but what does it actually mean? How does a player accrue "points" in football........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't accrue points. The source rather oddly allocates two points for a goal and one point for an assist - he actually had two goals and three assists in the season in question totalling 7 "points". I've never seen this methodology used in any other football context... ColchesterSid (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty common in US college soccer.[1] Hack (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Luis Suárez

Hello! Is there anyone who can (and wants to) help me work on this article?

I've nominated it for WP:ITN, but it definitely needs to be expanded and integrated with plenty of sources...

[By the way, may his soul rest in peace]

Oltrepier (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: I think the sources I included in my nomination, especially this obituary by Diario AS, should help us a lot, but the it.wiki and es.wiki pages should contain some useful links, too. Oltrepier (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of the new edits on the page so far?

I think I'm probably at 30% of the job at the moment, but I should be able to complete everything in the next few days. Oltrepier (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Strikethroughs and other embellishments in lists

Good afternoon all. Just reading about Luton Town promotion etc and when viewing their most recent season I can see some mark-ups occurring in lists such as Appearances and goals. Significantly I note this: "Players with names struck through and marked † left the club during the playing season". I raised this almost a year ago but it looks like we still have roughly the same 70 pages affected. I will start going through them tonight some time, but wanted to raise awareness again on MOS:STRIKETHROUGH / MOS:NOSTRIKE and confirm with the project if the MOS is to go for Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). or daggers as I can see daggers are proliferated throughout modern articles (along with asterisks)? From a plain English / legibility POV neither of these seem ideal. Koncorde (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A noble cause, but I fear you might just be wasting your time. The same editor(s) is likely continue to these going forward because they like the way it looks. Seasider53 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why you need a strike through, that seems pointless, so does the italics on that list. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In the same vein, I see results-by-round is still a thing, even though we decided it had zero value. Seasider53 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also to be found here, with the added bonus of completely unexplained colours on the "position" row..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Good luck too explaining how

Tottenham Hotspur in a Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season article doesn't violate MOS:FLAGS.--Echetus Xe 16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Heh, you can get rid of the results by round if you wish, I didn't add those myself, that's down to other people. As for flag icons, that's a different issue altogether. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2023 SAFF Championship squads

Hi, can someone kindly review Draft:2023 SAFF Championship squads? The tournament has finished over a week ago, and the draft has been sitting there for a month. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need squad lists for this minor tournament? The highest ranked team was 99th in the world, and the average attendance was 6,000 (with multiple games having 200 or fewer attendees). Personally, I don't see why the list of squads can't just be added to the main tournament article. Doesn't look like a valid WP:SPLIT to me, and the fact that someone created these squad lists for some previous SAFF tournaments isn't a valid reason for doing it again. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If accepted, it would also need a WP:HISTMERGE with 2023 SAFF Championship squads (which is a redirect with substantial editing history in it). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Timo Werner

Hello, could anyone please explain to StarryNightSky11 (talk · contribs) that WP:KARLSRUHER is something that should be applied? I don't want to violate 3R on Timo Werner. --Jaellee (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

New York Red Bulls players and adding every goal scored to prose

Hello! I have been trying to communicate to both an IP address and a user that we do not need to be adding every single goal that a player has scored to the prose of an article. This appears to be very common across a lot of articles for New York Red Bulls players, including Frankie Amaya, Tom Barlow, and Dante Vanzeir among others. I am a bit at a loss on how to deal with this, as I have tried engaging them on their respective talk pages rather than starting a new discussion across multiple article talk pages, but I have yet to receive a response, and this has been going on for at least a month. Could I get some additional eyes on these pages? Might be a relatively minor thing, but I recall at least one such discussion in which I was involved in the past that would be relevant here (albeit from when I was just starting out on Wikipedia). Jay eyem (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

club honours

Why are club articles listing runner-up achievements in honours section? I noticed this edit by Michaeldble which I thought was not a good edit, so I reverted, but it's all mixed in again with an honours and achievement header, which I don't think is the right thing to do. Michaeldble did that on a good few articles I noticed. I was wondering what other people think as I personally don't feel you should be listing runner up in club honours. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Just remove them. Runner(s)-up should be removed, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players#Honours which does not include them in its current layout. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That is the template fo rplayers, the template for club articles clearly states "(Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places.)"--Echetus Xe 12:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: Hello! Yes, my bad, and yes, you are right, in club articles 2nd places can be included. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adrian Mariappa

How should his infobox be dealt with now he has re-signed with Salford City? According to the club's retained and released list, he was released at the expiry of his contract, so is in a different situation to the likes of Ryan Watson, Matty Lund, and Conor McAleny, who were offered and accepted new contracts; Mariappa was released from the club, then offered a new deal. Is this a second spell at Salford, or a continuation of his first? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I would just continue it as one spell. There wasn't a noticeable gap (only a few days) and the team did not play any matches while he was out of contract. It's also consistent with how every other sport (ie. Basketball, hockey, baseball) is treated when players go out of contract at the end of the season, only to re-sign with the same club (ie. Treating as one spell). Had he only re-signed in say December, then I'd say two spells, but like this, one spell is more than fine. Come a couple months from now, will anyone remember (or even care) that he was out of contract for a short few days. RedPatch (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It would be wikilawyering in the extreme and not of any great benefit to readers to insist on showing it as two separate spells given that he was only technically out of contract for just over a week during which no games were played...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, keep as one spell. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 07:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been written right above, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback RedPatch, ChrisTheDude, Nehme1499, Oltrepier, much appreciated. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

One spell is agreed - such a situation is fairly common (IIRC it happened with Richard O'Donnell at Bradford City), and is different to e.g. Carlton Cole who left West Ham and re-signed a few months later. Giant Snowman 21:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the cut-off then? How about Daniel De Silva who left Macarthur FC on 9 June to puruse an overseas move but then returned on 11 July? --SuperJew (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Imo, as long as the club hasn't played games in the middle. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

its long been accepted from wikipedia football that if they leave and rejoin during the same transfer window they count as one spell lots of players conracts expire june 30th and it might not be till like june 2nd or something they sign a new deal. players are paid monthly, so he will be paid on june 30th and july 31st, so not having a contract hasnt meant much in the end for this guy.Muur (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Campus PSG

Request for input at the discussion at Campus PSG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Vivian Woodward

Why do we list/describe Harry Kane as England's top goalscorer when Vivian Woodward scored well over 60 goals? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You've answered your own question by linking England national football team and not England national amateur football team. Seasider53 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But he's listed here with 75 international goals? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

He shouldn't be.--Echetus Xe 09:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there has been a lot of contentious editing concerning Woodward's stats at the article which ItsKesha mentions above....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: Why shouldn't it be? The titled article clearly says List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals, regardless being amateur, they are still international goals. The other articles are defined by topic also. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, if the England amateur team matches were classed as international matches, which it seems like they were, then they meet the criteria of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The article states in the first paragraph "...at senior level" so on that basis I don't think the goals by Woodward for the England Amateur Team should be included as they were not the England senior team at that time

I don't see any contradiction in Germany (for example) considering these games as full internationals (and including them in their overall team and player records) and England not including them. On that basis he scored 29 international goals at senior level. ColchesterSid (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

England amateur against a non-amateur country? What happens is, you're disregarding one teams results and goals against another team. If you remove one side, it's a shit-show of information. If you remove them all, then you have to remove a couple hundred other statistics. To exclude will effectively create a shit-show of information yet again.

And besides, England amateur was effectively England-B. This is all early football still. You should have a look at the infobox at England national amateur football team. You will miss a vastness and completeness by removing the information. Perhaps the article in question needs adjustment to lead. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If we include amateur goals, we should also include goals for the under 21's and so on, as they are international goals. You are right, it is a shitshow of information. If England amateur is "effectively England-B", does that mean Stewart Downing, Matt Le Tissier, and Bedford Jezzard scored for England? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO it is deserving of a note beside the other English players due to the fact that some (all?) the opponents do count the matches but England don't. It would only merit inclusion as an entry itself if the matches were upgraded to full status by the FA - one of the reasons they haven't is probably due to the huge total they would be forced to acknowledge for Woodward, which would mean the current crowing and associated marketing revenue over Kane and the recent similar for Rooney would all be rather moot. Far easier to leave it as it is, so Wikipedia should do likewise. If the body controlling the team in question doesn't count them as full international matches/goals, nor should we. Crowsus (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

As above per Crowsus. England national football team is the national representative team that is entered into senior tournaments and so on - that is the subject of the article so that list should reflect only those goals for that team. Any other team organised by the FA doesn't count as they are not the England national football team. Woodward played for the ENF and scored a number of goals. He then opted to play strictly amateur football as the English FA specifically made the distinction between Amateur and Professional - and so was never selected for the ENF again. The List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals is strictly speaking a huge piece of original research and a hot mess. Quite why Kanes U21 goals are included is beyond me - it explicitly states "Senior" in the first paragraph - which would similarly impact Woodward. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Does this word exist in English?

Clubs often decide to play some summer friendlies far from their country for economic reasons. In Italy, we call these the set of these friendlies tournée, borrowed from French. Does this word exist in English as well? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no single English word used to specifically describe such games. They would just be referred to as "friendlies played overseas" or "friendlies played abroad" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Overseas tour more likely. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Tour alone is generally sufficient, usually while mentioning the country or region such as here and here. It would depend on the context it would be used of course. Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

From dictionary.com [tourney]

noun,plural tour·neys.
1, a tournament.
verb (used without object),tour·neyed, tour·ney·ing.
2, to contend or engage in a tournament.

1300–50; (v.) Middle English tourneyen<Old French torneier<Vulgar Latin *tornidiāre to wheel, keep turning; (noun) Middle English tourneie<Old French tournei, derivative of tourneier.

- Most likely, what we have today for the word Tour is still the same spelling in Latin, tour, tourney and tournament probably have somewhat similar word history. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Xavi

How many games did Xavi play for Barcelona? 767 or 779? I can find sources which say both. In fact I found a source that says both All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! He played 779 official matches for Barcelona, as explained here and here. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The talkpage of that article says otherwise, the 779 looks to include some Catalan Cup matches, which are debatable as a proper competition appearance. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

To confuse things even more, although I did not go and read those linked talk pages, I just read on FC Barcelona's website that Xavi made 782 official appearances for the club (see here). Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Memorial Grounds

Was this venue in West Ham? Or was it just outside of the West Ham area? Because it looked like it was directly next to East London Cemetery which is Plaistow. So I was wondering if the location should be noted as Plaistow instead? Govvy (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The article says it was in Canning Town which is (according to that article) part of the "Ancient Borough of West Ham" and part of the Parliamentary Consitituency of West Ham - so it would depend even on your definition of West Ham being used at the time in question. Koncorde (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I was trying to decided what the location should be put in the infobox, as I just added the infobox recently. Maybe I shall leave it as West Ham, I really don't know the area that well. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

So some addresses in the locale using the same postcode say Stratford, some say Newham, some say Canning Town. Whichever you choose, link to the right article. Koncorde (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi

It was Canning Town. Plaistow is the next locale northwards, both were part of the wider West Ham parish. The Thames Ironworks Gazette in 1897 referred to the new ground as being in Canning Town. Modern east London you'll see the boundaries of Canning Town drawn a but further south than they were at that time hence the likely confusion. I'm happy to add a citation to the page to confirm Canning Town ColchesterSid (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

K, cheers, Govvy (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C.

Wondering if an admin is willing to step in on what is seemingly an immature editor over at Sunderland A.F.C. He or she keeps adding the below prose to the lede, which is overly detailed and not important to the average reader. I reported them for 3RR a while back, but retracted it in the hopes of constructive discourse, but they can never find their keyboard when it comes to talk-page input. They were warned by another editor for WP:SLOWEW a few days ago in the Sunderland edit history.

"Between 1891 and 1939, "The Black Cats", as they are known – in addition to their six league titles – finished in the bottom half of the league only ten times, and finished in the top seven 28 times. Since World War II, their league performances have been considerably poorer, only finishing in the top half nine times (1947, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1956, 2000, 2001 and 2011), and only reaching the top seven four times (1950, 1955, 2000 and 2001). Furthermore, they have been relegated eleven times, and just over half of this period has been spent in the top flight (41 out of 76 seasons); of the 35 seasons in which they were outside the top flight, five have been spent in the third tier." - Seasider53 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And my ANI got archived without a response, which was nice. Seasider53 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the wording is not suitable, but this is a matter for the talk page. I've removed the wording. Giant Snowman 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nationality in lede

We have a standard way of editing - if a player is born in country X but plays for country Y, we do not include the nationality in the lede. @Frenchl: is of a different view, and has made disruptive edits for a few weeks now. His current habit is this. What are thoughts? Giant Snowman 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - in the situation you describe you would state (for example) the player was born in Germany and represents Turkey. Saying the same player is German and Turkish is probably making unverifiable assumptions, both factually and also perhaps counter to how they self identify.

His edits are for French players - do they do things differently on French WP? ColchesterSid (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Honest opinion: obviously very disruptive. On Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, I have removed all three nationalities off the lead as well as a couple of later removals on other articles. I'd guess the user is not familiar on how to read articles about multi-national footballers and once you edit a certain page more watchers will notice the disruption. Obviously we consider Erling Haaland as Norwegian although he was born in Leeds but that article does not use the word English apart from a reference title. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the second lead sentence at the moment, as the next section below that pretty much explains it. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not unverifiable assumptions, I add serious sources (UNFP and LFP) for every nationality I mention. For Aubameyang, he holds the three nationalities, he says himself "I am Franco-Gabonese-Spanish" (source). Frenchl (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules are that "country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph" per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, why should the Football Project act differently ? Also, a birthplace confers neither nationality nor eligibility to represent a national team automatically. And finally, sporting nationality does not exist and when Mahrez plays for Algeria, that does not make him less French. Frenchl (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, when a player is French and Moroccan, his French nationality is important because he was born and raised in France and his nationality makes him a EU player, which is important because in France and many other countries there are quotas for non-EU players. Frenchl (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The comment "please do not add multiple nationalities in the lede" from Jallee is not acceptable : there are hundred of articles with multiple nationalities in the lede : Michael Anderson Jr., Sidney Poitier, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Carrey... The WikiProject Football must comply with Wikipedia's global rules. Frenchl (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

and yet Emma Watson isn't said to be french and english. and do you really think Erling Haaland should be said to be english and swedishMuur (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Emma Watson is not French. She was born in France to British parents. Once again being born in France does not make you automatically French. If your parents are foreigners you'll have to wait until 13 years old or 18, and Emma Watson left France at 5. Frenchl (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Muur : Haaland is not Swedish but Norwegian and it is unclear wether he holds British citizenship. On the other hand, all the nationalities I've added are proven and sourced by reliable sources (LFP and UNFP). Frenchl (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

typoing the country name doesnt mean much, doesnt change my point. as for watson, if she were a male footballer youd have people arguing over it like with raheem sterling.Muur (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Writing swedish instead of norwegian is not typoing, it's ignorance. You should check on Emma Watson's Talk pages, there are already people arguing over her possibly French nationality. But once again, she is not French and has never been. Frenchl (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

what country it is has no baring on the point.Muur (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the country doesn't matter, since neither Watson is French nor Haaland is British. Frenchl (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Even "Born in France/England" is not mentionned in their lead section. Because country of birth shouldn't ! Frenchl (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bringing actors into a conversation about the nationality of footballers only muddies the water. They do not play for teams of countries in which they were not born. I’d still go with Snowman’s comments at the very top. We’ve always had a way of dealing with nationalities with footballers and we should stick to it.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's wrong, 10 years ago this subject wasn't treated that way.

(See [2]) The result of this Request for comment is that both players' nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article.

Saying that Mahrez is only Algerian is a POV. Only saying that he was "born in France and represents Algeria" breaks the rules of Wikipedia about MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Why mention the nationality for all footballers except for international dual nationals? It makes the thing even more ambiguous for readers.

A biographical article must conform to universal rules of citizenship--it must be factual across the board. "Sporting nationality" does not exist, and neither does "footballing nationality" nor "FIFA nationality", because according to FIFA regulations, international players are not tied to their country but to their representative association. In France the Conseil d'Etat does not even recognize the existence of a "sporting nationality".

I haven't read any serious argument here, all I read is "we've always done it this way" (which is false by the way). Frenchl (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

All this problem is explained by the existence of a language shortcut which consists in qualifying a “national team” by the adjective which refers to the country it represents. Indeed, from a legal point of view, the athletes selected do not represent a nation but a national federation: "We thus speak of the 'French team', whereas from the strict point of view of the law of associations we should speak of “the team of the French Federation of”. Consequently, athletes do not have a legal link with a nation or a country but with a federation which, in law, is an association. Frenchl (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, you are mis-quoting CONTEXTBIO, which says "country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" (my emphasis). Secondly, the MOS is a guideline only, it is no a rule which must be used as you insist. Thirdly, as is clear from this discussion, with footballers we operate the way that I have explained to you. You continuing to edit against consensus is disruptive and needs to stop. Giant Snowman 11:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The complete sentence is "Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."

In the case of Mahrez and other players, we are not talking about a previous nationality (he is still French), so because he is currently notable in France the place of birth should not be mentioned : we simply have to say he is French and Algerian. These are his current legal nationalities. When we say "born in France" it could imply that he is not notable in France anymore and it says nothing about his nationality.

When I read you, it's clear that you mix up the representative national team and legal nationalities, and because of that you want to remove ALL nationalities from the lead section for dual nationals. It is absolutly not a neutral point of view, it is the point of view of a football fan but in no case the opinions of football fans are above the law.

The most funny thing is that in the first revision of Riyad Mahrez's article that you yourself created in 2014, you described him as "a French professional footballer".

Moreover you still provide no argument. "as is clear from this discussion" => no this discussion is not clear. "we operate that way" => There's still no rationale behind that. I know it's hard to admit your mistakes when they've been going on for a long time. Frenchl (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Re first version of Riyad Mahrez: it was unclear if he was going to play for Algeria until the World Cup in 2014. Then the rest is history, he is known to be one of many players with ambiguous nationality. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Seriously ? His nationalities are not ambiguous ! He is French and he is Algerian, period. Football has nothing to do with that. He is French and Algerian and plays for the representative team of the Algerian Football Federation at "A" international level, these are the exact wording of the FIFA. He has never played for Algeria at the 2014 World Cup ! To read you one has the impression that he was stripped of French nationality as soon as he wore a white and green jersey. This is massive POV. Frenchl (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Frenchl, you are the only person wanting to edit footballer articles in the way you suggest. Why do you think that is? Giant Snowman 07:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Truth is not determined by a majority vote. And that's wrong, see this example, or this one, or this one. There are plenty of other examples of people complaing that ALL nationalities are omitted as soon a dual national plays for a representative team of a member association. This is massive POV, you should open your eyes. Players do not represent a country, even representative teams do not represent a country, they represent a member association, which only represents Association Football in his country, see FIFA statutes article 17. When a member association represents a country, the FIFA suspends them over third-party ingerence, that's what happened for Nigerian, Kenyan, and Zimbabwean Football Federations last year. Frenchl (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

They're not omitted, they are placed in context. Sometimes the opening sentence or paragraph is not an appropriate place to discuss often complex national, ethnic, birth place, inherited, adopted, naturalised (and so on) nationalities. Especially as, routinely, they are poorly documented or develop as more information becomes apparent over their career. Koncorde (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not, they are omitted : in the sentence "Born in France, he represented Senegal at international level.", there is no mention of any nationality.

"Poorly documented" : that is wrong in France, UNFP website documents all nationalities of a every French or France-based players as soon as he signs an aspirant or trainee youth contract. They offer a complete database for the last 20 years. The LFP website also offers very precise and much more reliable information than press sources or Soccerway (because official and based on legal foundations, LFP has to determine whether a player is EU or non-EU so they have access to proofs of nationality) for the last 30 years. For French players, they should be the only sources to use regarding names, dates of birth, places of birth and nationalities. Frenchl (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Again - why do you think you are the only person wanting to edit in the way you are suggesting? Could it be because your way is wrong? And by insisting on it, you are being disruptive? Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Snowman's comment about misquoting the Contextbio, the guidelines are clearly asking to take in account the subject notability relevance along with taking into consideration of consensus. If a player born in a country and playing for another national team holding both countries passport then nationality becomes personal matter. I don't see any harm in keeping a separate line mentioning, "born in X country and representing Y NT in internationl football", which is more clean and without bias or POV, does not make any reader confuse, who is not familiar with the subject. Drat8sub (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point I can't even work out what Frenchl actually thinks he's saying when he quotes Contextbio etc or asserts the UNFP and LFP as a universal solution (revealing a rather obvious partisan French bias to their interest). The "nationality" is dealt with in the Early & personal life section in Salif Sanés case, but is also routinely included in the lede in other examples. The problem with such short articles is that the lede is often underdeveloped - and that is an actual real issue. Koncorde (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman : I already show I'm not the only person wanting to edit in this way, I'm just the only contributing in this talk page.

@Koncorde : No, even in the Early & personal life section, the nationality is not dealt with : being born in France to Senegalese parents does not give you French nationality automatically : his parents must either be French, or being born in Senegal before its acquisition of independance. This possibility has even been abolished for people born after 1993 to foreign parents : they now need to wait until 13 or 18 years old. So clearly "Born in France" does not deal with nationality anymore : for players born in France to foreign parents after 1993, there is absolutely no case in which they acquire French nationality at birth.

I don't assert UNFP or LFP as a universal solution, it's only the most reliable source for French players. I'm pretty sure other countries are not as serious about multiple nationalities. And that is precisely why you all use this ambiguous and vague phrase "Born in France, he is of X descent" when the source does not even talk about a "descent", I've seen that dozens of times. Example here. Writing "descent" when a source talks about a dual nationality is an erroneous interpretation and a POV. If you have so little confidence in a source that you have to interpret it your way, don't use it. Using categories like "French sportspeople of Senegalese descent" when sources say he is French and Senegalese is also erroneous POV.

About Salif Sané : did you realize that it is specified twice in the lead section that he represents the Senegal team?

@Drat8sub : A player does not represent a team, they play for it. Frenchl (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat then: I have no idea what you think you want, or what you think your argument is for or what policy you are arguing against. The use of the word "descent" is entirely neutral in English as is "Born in France". If someone is born in France but their parents are Senegalese then they are of Senegalese descent. That isn't POV. It certainly isn't erroneous. It isn't an expression of nationality (as routinely the presence of a nationality is not expressed by most sources as anything other than their competitive nationality). If there are French sources that exhaustively outline the specifics of every player: go for it. Please feel free to go through every player and add a source for their Frenchness if you like - but that will not change the use of terms such as "born in X, represents Y" because that is common parlance in football and universally understood.

For the purpose of expressing a players representative nationlity we don't care what happened in France in 1993 unless it applies to representative nationalities. We don't have a crystal ball for every single countries specifics of their migration law and nor is it significant or relevant in the vast majority of cases to even give it any consideration.

Meanwhile for the purposes of representation: the idea of "representing a team" - that's what "plays for" means. I'm not sure if that's an issue with you being (I assume, perhaps wrongly) an non-native English speaker or if you are purposely trying to split a hair somewhere.

As for Salif Sanes article: That is how we commonly deal with national representation. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned this is all getting a bit strange and dare I say it, confusing and lacking in clarity for readers. Declan Rice has now been changed to "before switching his allegiance to England Football Association in 2019, where he played for the representative team at UEFA Euro 2020 and the 2022 FIFA World Cup", whereas this used to simply refer to switching allegiance to England. Are we really going to go through thousands of articles and change the country a footballer plays for to representing that country’s football association? No clarity and basically not how people speak.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's garbled nonsense. The idea "representing the country" vs "playing for the team" is complete gibberish POV. Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the wording of the FIFA. Frenchl (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally the meaning in English language is they are the same. It is common parlance. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giuseppe_Rossi#Is_Rossi_the_only_soccer_player_in_the_world_with_no_nationality.

Another example of someone saying exactly what I say. I'm definitely not alone ! Frenchl (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lots of comments are left on lots of articles. Not being alone isn't the same as having a cogent argument. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I know but I've been said "since you're the only person to think that way you must be wrong" which is specious Frenchl (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koncorde "If someone is born in France but their parents are Senegalese then they are of Senegalese descent." : Absolutely wrong ! They are Senegalese. This is how Senegalese nationality works ! Frenchl (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Senegalese descent has nothing to do with nationality. It is the way of saying that their parents may themselves be French, or Senegalese, or his grandparents or so on to explain the context of eligibility for a nation. If you want to clarify in the narrative "is eligible to play for Senegal because Senegal grants citizenship to any person born of a citizen of the country" crack on - but it's unnecessary and pointless. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Of Senegalese descent" means he is not Senegalese, which is obviously wrong. He is Senegalese by descent.

I use "of Senegalese descent" only when I have no reliable information about his Senegalese nationality. Frenchl (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What I want is that WikiProject Football has the same rules on nationality as WikiProject Basketball, which itself respects the global rules of Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL.

See this list of players : they all have national team careers but they all are described with all their nationalities in the lead.

Giannis Antetokounmpo : Greek-Nigerian

Matisse Thybulle : Australian-American

Abu Kigab : Sudanese-Canadian

Kaza Kajami-Keane : Canadian-Jamaican

Melvin Ejim : Canadian-Nigerian

Philip Scrubb : Canadian-British

Ebi Ere : American-Nigerian

Benjamin Eze : Nigerian-Italian Frenchl (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, most of those don't even mention their nationalities apart from in the opening para and the infobox, almost inevitably without sources. Since they're mostly not sourced they should be removed. For example, Kaza Kajami-Keane doesn't even explain the "Jamaican" part of his "nationality" (I presume one or more parents was Jamaican, but we'd never know from the article). Melvin Ejim born in Canada, apparently one parent was Nigerian, though the sentence telling us this is unsourced. And so on. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Kajami-Keane's has Jamaican passport through his father who is Jamaican. Ejim has Nigerian passport therefore necessarily the nationality. Frenchl (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And we would have known this from the articles ... how, exactly? We wouldn't. Again, unless sourced, nationalities should be removed. This isn't a difficult concept and WP:BLP is a policy. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I have official sources for every nationality I add to footballers articles, and I remove nationalities that are not sourced, so no problem. Frenchl (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Having a passport for a country due to heritage/residency does not make a person 'that' nationality for Wikipedia purposes. Nobody would describe Nacho Novo as a 'Spanish-Scottish' footballer. Giant Snowman 18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah ok but you can't have a passport without having the nationality. That is why FIFA only use passports as proofs of nationality. Kajami-Keane and Ejim are Jamaican and Nigerian by descent, not because they were naturalized. Nacho Novo is a different case, we don't even know if he was naturalized British. Frenchl (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Going to make this clear: If you add "nationalities" in the opening sentence that are different to their representative nationality then you will be reverted as going against the consensus of the project. If you remove representative nationalities you will be reverted. If you are adding context for why they are eligible for other countries then it should be well written - not just forced into an article - and should observe basic common usage of the terms and should likely be in the context of Personal Life, or Early Life type sections of the main article body (unless their passport status has become an integral part of their notability). Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that Salif Sané was born on August 25, 1990 integral part of his notability ? Frenchl (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it if you think it's going to make your WP:POINT. Koncorde (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Frenchl (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And I told you to remove it if you think it makes your WP:POINT because that's what you are attempting to do and I want no part of what is already a circus of nonsense. Koncorde (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your behavior is in violation with Wikipedia:AGF. I was just asking a question, you should read Wikipedia:NOTPOINTy. Frenchl (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm telling you to make the change if you think it will make the WP:POINT you want to make. Good faith is neither here nor there. If you don't have a point, feel free not to do it. Koncorde (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I do have a point, but I don't need to make this change to illustrate it. Actually I think nationalities are like date of birth : they are important even if they are not always part of players notability. Frenchl (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Tables listing a player's appearances in a major tournament

There is a discussion regarding this topic; linking here as it is relevant to this project Joeykai (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Rebranding and relocating

Following their relegation from tier 2 to tier 3, Coventry United W.F.C. have relocated to Rugby and rebranded as Rugby Borough, therefore aligning themselves with Rugby Borough F.C. and disassociating from Coventry United F.C. (sources: [3], [4], [5]). My question is should we move Coventry United W.F.C. or start a new page? And if there's someone with experience with these kinds of changes, it'd be great if they could move/create/update the relevant pages. --SuperJew (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone have any input about this? --SuperJew (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

probably best to make a new page? is there any other times something like this has happened to follow precedence?Muur (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Match report new norm?

I noticed that the qualifying stage of this season's UEFA tournaments (Champions League, Conference League) have a different match report format. Instead of a direct link (e.g. Report), it now looks like this: Report^[1]. Is this the new norm for match reports? Though more prominant tournaments like UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying Group A still use direct link report. Sofeshue (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See archived discussion here. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Having Report^[1] is a bit weird. The source isn't citing the word/fact "Report". We should think of a better format to have a in line citation instead of a direct link. Perhaps have it next to the score, such as: 1–1^[2]. --SuperJew (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, my preference would be to just have the citation displayed under the score as the Report links do on other articles but I'd have no problem with it next to the score. Tbf, when I saw Report had been added, I felt the justification for undoing the edit was negligible so just left it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've always seen it as Report instead of any other way imaginable to me on pages pre-this season. We should all know results should be cited appropriately. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Using a citation template isn't necessarily required, so the current method without a full reference is fine. I haven't seen pushback from FAC about this either, so if the people who volunteer to scrutinize articles even more than usual aren't displeased, then I don't see why we have to change. Sounder Bruce 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Using a bare URL in that fashion as a source is a helpful first step. However, per WP:CITE it is standard practice to improve existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations. Essentially, no one is asking anyone to change the way they edit. All that the policy says is don't undo it if someone upgrades a bare URL to a full citation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

^ "Sutjeska-Cosmos". UEFA.com. Union of European Football Associations. Retrieved 13 July 2023.

Should a charge over a club (Man City) be included?

What I assume is a Man City fan (given the tone of their post) has "overhauled" the Man City article (a featured article which is now veering into fan POV territory) which included the removal of the Premier League charge against the club; Midway through the season, the Premier League charged the club with over 100 financial rule breaches, including failing to comply with financial fair play rules.^[1] Given the seriousness of the charge hanging over the club (and the fact the manager himself spoke of it right up to the conclusion of the season) it seems to be a breach of NPOV (ie. editorial bias) by omitting it. Should the charge be included? Nampa DC (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say so. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Monerals:, pinging involved editor. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes - as that's significant to the history of the club including how it might expel them from the competition and per explanation of the second sentence in the opening edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes - but also the paragraph preceding is full of peacock and fluff and unencyclopedic tone. The 2022–23 season turned out to be the greatest in the club's history, as Manchester City won their third consecutive Premier League title, the FA Cup final against rivals Manchester United, and, most importantly, their maiden Champions League title, thereby assembling a rare feat – the continental treble. The road to the Champions League victory included convincing victories over the perennial favourites and European giants Bayern Munich, who were defeated 4–1 on aggregate, and Real Madrid, who suffered a 1–5 aggregate loss at the hands of City after their controversial 6–5 extra time victory at the same stage a year before. and so on. Koncorde (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

^ Paul, MacInnes (6 February 2023). "Premier League charges Manchester City over alleged financial rule breaches". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

About TV Rights Language Splits

I had discussed it with Kingsif about this on Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights - Wikipedia and decided to bring this issue here, so we can avoid more edit wars in the future

Should we tell users what companies had got the rights specificaly by language? [eg. Fox Sports (English) ]

Reasoning: More and More, Leagues, UEFA and FIFA are doing it, specially on North America (USA and Canada), other companies had done similar rights on Caribbean and parts of Europe, so therafore, for informative and historicity reason, i think we should put it on lists, similar in some that already have such as 2024 Copa América.

Some news articles about it Telemundo getting Spanish rights in USA, FOX getting English rights in USA, Some exemple of german-language rights for Switzerland, some exemple of Canadian French right

Meganinja202 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is, Meganinja changed (among other things) some formatting to identify broadcasters by language, and others (not I) objected. As it became an edit war, I pulled users to the talkpage, and one of the results was that I suggested having a wider discussion on this point of conflict.
The question is more like "should we encourage 'FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights' articles to mention the different language markets". There's different views presented, though the fact that broadcasting rights are sold separately in nations with multiple official languages is well-established, so I don't think it being something that's documented could be considered an argument. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Steaua vs FCSB again

User @Dante4786 has started an edit war with me over how to display Vasil Khamutowski's club stint during 2003-2005. The user claims that 1) we should use present club name, despite the fact that we have an established consensus to use historical names piped to present ones, and 2) that FCSB "never owned the rights to Steaua name." Both FC Steaua București and FCSB articles state that name change was only forced on them in 2017. The name FCSB simply did not exist in 2003-2005. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

use what they were called at the timeMuur (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This is btw not nearly the first time they display this behavior over Steaua/FCSB dispute and it's probably time for a stop. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is to use the OFFICIAL names. Not the past names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sports_teams) Look at Grigore Grigoriu. It's Rapid (present name), not CFR. Look at Nicolae Oțeleanu. It's Universitatea Craiova (again, present name), not Stiinta Craiova (past name). Also, it clearly states (as it should) that the name should not be easily confused with other clubs' names. It implies that we should avoid ambiguity. So, look at Vasil Khamutowski's page. Check his Managerial career. On 2022, he went to Steaua. You insist to write that in 2003, he went to Steaua. In 2003, that's NOT Steaua. That's not the same team. Your edit generates ambiguity. You want two DIFFERENT teams to use the SAME name. How is this helpful or informative? Dante4786 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I made it a bit easier by removing assistant and youth roles from the managerial section of the infobox. Please check the infobox documentation for further information about what to include, and what not to. Seasider53 (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dante4786: the naming convention that you mentioned has nothing to do with displaying club names in player's articles. It only concerns the title of wikipedia article for the club itself (which should remain FCSB, I'm not arguing here). In the competitions' and players' articles, it is the norm to always use historically accurate name, which has been discussed here many times: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The examples that you mentioned (Grigoriu and Oțeleanu) are both wrong and should be fixed as well to display the historical names.--BlameRuiner (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

BlameRuiner I'm sorry but that is cherry picking. You ignore my examples from the present and try to prove them wrong by invoking other past controversies. That doesn't prove anything. That's not consensus. People were debating then just like we are now. And you clearly omit the fact, even now, that you want two DIFFERENT teams to be represented by the SAME name. This isn't helpful or informative. Even in your links, the argument is that we should try to avoid confusion. Please, explain how we avoid confusion when you refer to both CSA Steaua Bucharest and SC FC FCSB SA as "Steaua Bucharest". Again, Wikipedia doesn't legitimize scams and thefts. By naming another team "Steaua" (a team that was legally striped down of that name), the text misleads people. It's like stating on Wikipedia that a conspiracy theory is actual true. It's not. It's not in accordance with reality. And present information can have a retroactive effect. For example, if there is a scientific discovery that changes past consensus, wikipedia will acknowledge this and change the text. If there is new information that disproves past information (something that was recognised falsely as facts), Wikipedia articles will be guided by the former. And the same applies for sports subjects. Yes, Juventus won 2005–06 Serie A, but new information emerged and Juventus is no longer considered the champion of that year. And I believe most of your links are not even about similar situations (a name being disputed in real life). And I don't see why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) can't apply to players' articles, ESPECIALLY when there is a HUGE risk of confusion in this particular case. That naming convention is the only one being fully agreed on. Dante4786 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else wanna weigh in here? --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

if premier league gets renamed to banana league, are you going to suggest to change thousands of player articles to say they played in the banana league? it wouldve been known as premier league when they played in it. the whole first/second/third/fourth division stuff would be quite the confusion too. should players from the 1800s be said to have played in the efl championship? techincally the league preston won in teh first ever season in 1888 was what is currently the efl championship (due to the creation of the premier league). should we change those players and teams to say they won the efl championship in 1888 and onwards?Muur (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner This is not a popularity contest. If you can't back up your own opinion (objections? claims? I'm not sure what's the correct word in English for this), maybe that's a sign you should reconsider things? That's sounds way more sarcastic than I intend it to be :) But please, think about what I wrote in my previous answer and what I asked you.

@Muur But we aren't talking now about a league name, are we? We are discussing a particular case about two different TEAMS (not leagues). Is it helpful to use the SAME name when talking about two different teams? When one of them was legally striped down of that name because they used it in a dishonest manner? Let's be clear. I don't think we should make a conscious effort in changing the name everywhere. That's not easy. But if a Wikipedia editor has the time or by chance stumbles upon an article related to this issue, why shouldn't he be allowed to update the information? Why preserve past (and FALSE) information for no reason whatsoever? Changing the name literally helps readers and prevents confusion (especially in this particular case). All benefits, no drawbacks. Dante4786 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dante4786 You're right, it's not a contest. I backed my opinion with at least 5 examples of discussions at FOOTY that support my point. What did you do? Just pointed to a few other articles created or expanded by 1 other editor that never discussed this thing with anyone, which weren't corrected yet because nobody noticed yet. The only false information and confusion for the readers being introduced here is you claiming the player played for the club named FCSB in 2003, when that name simply did not exist. The difference between current name and historical name is why we use piping. While we're at it, do you suggest we should go to 1932–33 Divizia A article and change CFA to Rapid? In 2003–04 Divizia A change Steaua to FCSB? If no, why not?

Quote: By naming another team "Steaua" (a team that was legally striped down of that name), the text misleads people. It's a very convenient argument when you ignore the fact that they were stripped of the name in 2017. It doesn't work backwards.

Quote: And I don't see why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) can't apply to players' articles... Perhaps the answer is the very first sentence in on that page: This page lists naming conventions for articles on sports teams.--BlameRuiner (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner You backed up your opinion with 5 discussions, that's right. Discussions. Subjectivity (just like you said, what we do now here are just opinions). Nothing agreed on. People arguing without there being a consensus (if there was a rule or a consensus in favor of what you say, there wouldn't have been more discussions in the first place). The fact you brought up 5 debates disproves the existence of a consensus regarding this subject. I brought up a naming convention. Established rules. I also brought different objective examples (of things that already are) to illustrate the lack of consensus in the direction you implied to exist.

Quote: Just pointed to a few other articles created or expanded by 1 other editor Not just 1. Yes, he wrote the infobox for both (I didn't notice that until now) but the present name (and only the present name!) was mentioned in the body of the article long before the infobox was created. My intention was to give examples of articles about footballers who played for other team than Steaua. Wikipedia is full of examples like those 2, especially regarding Romanian football.

Quote: you claiming the player played for the club named FCSB in 2003, when that name simply did not exist Yes. And I'm not arguing otherwhise. I didn't say FCSB was the name in 2003. That's what this discussion is about, to use or not tu use the present name.

Quote: While we're at it, do you suggest we should go to 1932–33 Divizia A article and change CFA to Rapid? In 2003–04 Divizia A change Steaua to FCSB? If no, why not? Those 2 examples are not the same and you know it. One was a voluntary change (Rapid can always go back and use that name), the second was forced to do so (and can never go back to that name), because it was proven they used that name without any rights. To use "Steaua" in that context, regarding that specfic team, implies the opposite. Again, Wikipedia doesn't legitimize scams and thefts. Wikipedia doesn't potray fiction or conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is about reality. Before I fully answer your question, it's only fair you answer my question first. I already asked you something in the beginning. Seeing how you dodge my question 3 times now, please explain how is it helpful or informative for two DIFFERENT teams to be represented by the SAME name. I won't answer any further questions until you adress the main issue. We already dragged this on for far too long. Take Adrian Popa for example. If things go your way, we will have to write Steaua Bucuresti for 2012-2017 and Steaua Bucuresti for 2021-2023. Even though those 2 are two different teams. Do you really not see how this can be confusing or misinforming?

Quote: It's a very convenient argument when you ignore the fact that they were stripped of the name in 2017. It doesn't work backwards. Yes it does. I literally explained it. Here, copy-paste from my previous answer: Present information can have a retroactive effect. For example, if there is a scientific discovery that changes past consensus, wikipedia will acknowledge this and change the text. If there is new information that disproves past information (something that was recognised falsely as facts), Wikipedia articles will be guided by the former. And the same applies for sports subjects. Yes, Juventus won 2005–06 Serie A, but new information emerged and Juventus is no longer considered the champion of that year.

Quote: Perhaps the answer is the very first sentence in on that page: This page lists naming conventions for articles on sports teams. And I proposed we should extend the use of this convention, seeing how this is the only one being fully agreed on. A written rule about something similar is better than to invoke non-existing consensus. Dante4786 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Later Edit: Fine, I will answer your question (please answer mine). I will try to wrap things up, and present it as a final statement, as well. With a few exceptions, we two seem to be the only ones talking about this so I don't know how productive is to extend this conversation.

I believe for articles regarding past seasons (like that specific one for Rapid), we should use the past name because that's the whole point of that article. The past. History. It's like a time capsule. However, if subsequent circumstances emerge and change the past, we should acknowledge this accordingly. Another example related to Juventus: even though they won 2004–05 Serie A, after 2006 there weren't presented anymore as champions of that season.

For FCSB (articles about the past, present, infobox, everything), we should use the present name, I already explained why. The priority (as noted by past editors and current rules) should be to avoid confusion, missinformation or the legitimization of frauds.

For players' infoboxes, we should use the present name. Why? Because like the infobox of sports clubs, it's about present information. Things according to how they are perceived now. One past season presented in one article is just that, one season. Usualy, the football carrer of one player will extend to many years. Decades, even. So it is a much bigger time lapse for small changes to appear that my cause confusion. The infobox is like a present view of the past (and present). It's like an ID card. In many cases, the person is still alive and perhaps still active in their carrer. Things can change and things may be added. They could train a team in 2023 and train the same team 10 years later, but under a different name. Should we use two different names for the same team in the same infobox? I don't think that's the best option. The infobox of a PLAYER is not the right place to show the history of a CLUB. There are other articles for that. Dante4786 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

if they have the same name, put the year formed in bracketsMuur (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Muur My apologies, I previously pinged you by mistake. Unfortunately, what you say doesn't help. Both teams claim same history, same year, same everything. And the years in brackets would make the infobox even more confusing Dante4786 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello, this requested move has been open for 16 days, but only GiantSnowman has been kind enough to respond. I would appreciate some input before the page is either moved or not moved. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping to provide input to this requested move but it appears that page has now been moved. I would have supported that move because of the club being commonly abbreviated. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Iggy the Swan. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances

List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances has an ongoing dispute and edit war which has been unresolved for the past few days - there are two issues here as follows

Firstly - one user @Lorry Gundersen is adamant that, for players in England, reserve team appearances and games played at a very junior level should be included as they can be deemed "official". All other identifiable contributors to this and archived discussions are equally clear that this is incorrect and that these types of games should not be counted. Despite acknowledging the consensus is against him however @Lorry Gundersen is reverting any attempts to edit out these appearances and insisting that we provide proof that reserve team games are not considered official

Secondly - Same user and @ItsKesha are engaged in an edit war over the huge number of citations and notes added over the past couple of years to this article

So I feel this page would benefit from some outside review and mediation ColchesterSid (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Current discussion can be found on the talk page here Talk:List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances in the section headed "Can we summarise the disputes here and try and move towards agreement?" ColchesterSid (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not even the beginning of the issues with the page. The user is adamant that, for example, self-published sites like wordpress and blogspot websites are legitimate and unqiestionable sources of information, original research is a legitimate editing tactic, the inclusion of 90 notes is a reasonable way of presenting (absolutely pointless and often incoherent) information including OR, every source and note needs a lengthy name which simply cannot be reduced or removed, that one source can outweigh eight+ reliable sources, and that we pick and choose when to believe sources. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's please keep the discussion in one location. Giant Snowman 10:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@ColchesterSid: Where did you get that from? No, as I explained in the article's talk section, I am not at all adamant these matches to be removed from the list, as long as the inclusion criteria changed, because then it wouldn't be about all official matches, except for the ones removed for a reason (as explained in the first paragraph of the article). Also, the matches in question are not "at a very junior level" (U19, U20, U21, U22 and U23 are not junior levels). Please be consistent with when passing information from one place to another, and/or don't make up things, or, if you don't understand something, just ask. I don't have any issue to explain in details if needed. They are included because they are official, according to a source that is considered reliable in WP. Do you or anyone else have a source that says otherwise? No-one provided a source to claim these are not official. P.S. Whether the list should be only about fully professional numbers or not is another discussion. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! On another topic, with my leave from updating the article, due to lack of time reasons, and with Kesha "contributing" there, I can predict this article soon becoming "frozen" without updates, like the list of footballers with 500 or more goals, so I have to propose either deletion or reservation of the article in advance. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You're proposing deletion of the article because you don't have time to update it? That 500 goals article you linked to is updated regularly, is reliably sourced (and doesn't rely on highly dubious sources or original research), and hasn't been "frozen". Thanks for the personal attack though. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! It's a demanding list that requires most of the time daily updates and in the last 3, almost 4, years only me and Bakermannn have been updating it, with some exceptions on rare occasions from other editors. Since we don't have time anymore, I am pretty sure it will wither. After all, last time it got updated was on 23 June, since then nobody updated it. No offense, but your contribution has been to remove content, and not add to what is already there, and you don't seem to be willing to make updates. Would you curate it, knowing it requires daily updates? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk)

No you're right, the only solution here is to delete the entire article because Lorry Gunderson won't be editing it any more 🙄 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: Hello! Would you curate it, knowing it requires daily updates? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No but I am going to personally ensure that the article rots away 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore the bickering here - I'm happy to "curate" this page but only if the edit warring stops as I don't have the time or energy to argue over every edit. If @Lorry Gundersen and @ItsKesha can both agree to that then fine. I currently contribute to List of footballers in England by number of league appearances where I can see I've made 492 out of the last 500 page edits over the last nine months - all without any disputes or conflict. I currently edit that on a weekly basis (and sometimes more often) and would do the same here.

For absolute clarity however I believe we have consensus on (1) simplifying the notes/citations (2) removing the English reserve team appearances and (3) removing the English non-league appearances. That would remove Rooke and Bastock from this list and reduce the totals for about 6 other English players. I would also be mindful to look at the Schoolboy, U15 etc appearances but would not touch those without coming back for a consensus. WP is a collaborative enterprise however and I would be welcoming of any support. ColchesterSid (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@ColchesterSid: Hello! (1) Details had been added on the notes so to be as explanatory as possible. If you can "simplify" them, but not lose the info they convey, fine. (2) and (3) To do that, then you should change the inclusion criteria of the article, for fairness reasons. For instance, If you remove reserve team appearances (i.e. the ones included: U19-U23, only B and C teams of clubs) because editors in WP think these are not official as they claim the English FA doesn't regard them as official, even though no proof was provided for that, then you should follow the same agenda for all other players/teams, e.g. CBF doesn't separate the matches of Brazilian clubs to friendly and official ones, i.e. they give them the same status, so then you should include also the friendly matches for Brazilian clubs, et c. Does this sound fair to you? Also, does it sound fair having, e.g, Real Madrid B and C and not the second team for Leicester, especially at a time when reserves teams did not have an age limit, as these are the ones that are included, because, nowadays, they are U23 or U21 teams with some exceptions, e.g. 3 overage players - age limit is also in Real Madrid B and C that are included? To remove matches from a player for the X reason and for the same reason to increase the matches of another player sounds fair? Likewise, removing semi-professional and non-league matches for Bastock means you should do the same from other players as well, and this involves many players, e.g. ones played in Brazilian and Welsh tournaments. In addition, war numbers that are included are primarily because they are regarded as official by a reliable source, because the other FAs, excluding the English FA, have deemed those as official, and you will have similar issues removing them, as there are other players played in that time included, I mean others in non UK-countries tournaments. In other words, I have no problem one to apply the changes you mention, as long as (s)he can find the "golden ratio" on what the inclusion criteria would be so as the list to be as fair as possible (without fairness there is no comparison). Do you even look at statistical sources or just the news? No offense, but from your inputs, I get that your purpose since the beginning is only to remove content that you don't see in WP articles, which is totally baseless and without any research whatsoever, i.e. you don't seem to realize the previous explained here; the work it includes, and the changes needed to be made to reach to new inclusion criteria that can approach fairness and have the bias confined to the minimum, if that is feasible. P.S. It is a very demanding list that weekly updates won't work, it requires daily ones, or one every two days. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well this is exhausting. Having written the above you've headed straight back to the original article and continued to reverse edits and argue about citations

I'll leave you to it then - I'll remove this page from my Watchlist and won't contribute any further here ColchesterSid (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@ColchesterSid: Hello! You're welcome for thanking me for the time I devoted to explain. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

unless theyre in the league pryamid like some spanish youth teams or the efl trophy like some english u23 teams - where only the efl trophy matches count - reserve and youth club appearances do not count and no one even tracks them in the first place how you gonna figure out how many appearances a guy made for a league two under 5s team theyre effecitvely the same as pre season friendlies, also that page still has a lot of useless references like shilton playing twice for bolton reserves and 63 times for liecester reserves etc. just sounds like the above user should be banned as everyone is telling him hes wrong. the page was fine before it was stank up with non official matchesMuur (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Can you provide a reliable source for this claim that the matches in question are not official? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

no one counts them. like, heres hibernian last month saying adam le fondre has played 694 games and scored 273 goals in his career - cuz thats all the senior games he's played scored. so not a single youth or reserve one is counted. man uniteds total for bobby chalrton only includes senior. no one gives a shit about them but you and your continued insistence when everyone tells you youre wrong is gonna get you bannedMuur (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is not true. They are included in the list with a source that is considered not only reliable in WP, but it is also one of the most used in WP for football statistics. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying one source includes them, which means it is a fringe theory? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Muur: Hello again! Besides, official club sites' almost always, for comparison reasons, give out only the statistics/numbers for the A team and are not a good metric for the B and C teams' ones. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So not only are youe saying every other editor on the issue is wrong, you're now saying reliable sources and even the clubs themselves are wrong. Do you work for RSSSF? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! To answer your question, no, I don't work for RSSSF. Now, I am not saying every other editor on the issue is wrong, I just said there are still many things that need to be clarified if these matches in question have to be removed on a consensus that was never clearly decided, since half of the names ColchesterSid quoted were talking about something else, as well as ones to be answered, which have not been answered yet (see the previous inputs in this talk), and, regarding reliable sources and even the clubs themselves, I never said they are wrong, I just said that for statistical purposes/comparison reasons these usually include only the numbers for the A team (this is also why sometimes they do not include play-out or play-off matches). Since the start, you have been distorting whatever I am saying in order to pass your own agenda. Do you work for BBC? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If a single source doesn't say ">1000" then you are committing WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - this is particularly egregious if you are creating the definition of what counts rather than using a reliable source from which we might extrapolate others who would qualify to be on the list. The format of the list itself is also highly questionable. It seems there has been a lot of work done, but you have to question if it should have been done and from what sources. Koncorde (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

how do we request staff to deal with this i feel like at this point theres enough for giantsnowman, an admin, to ban himMuur (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing bannable going on. It's just a bit of WP:CRUFT that has gotten out of hand as people have tried to improve and qualify inclusion criteria (rather than establishing clear inclusion criteria based on a reliable source). Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

well we need staff to deal with it. reserve and youth stuff dont count. Muur (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We also need somebody to remove all the pointless notes and original research and blogs and self-published sources, as I have tried and tried time and time and time again. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

VAR in infobox of seasons and tournaments

Is it possible to add to the infobox of a season or tournament if VAR will be used in the respective season or tournament. Since VAR isn't used universally across all leagues around the world, it would help to know without having to sift through pages or paragraphs of content only to find out there isn't any info. Anyone agree? Maybe like a little image of the VAR logo and then next to it either yes or no. Regards, MicroX (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the same as specifying how many subs are permitted in the infobox? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

PROD

User:jlwoodwa just PRODed like 100 articles for football (and more for other sports) in a short span, how is that acceptable? Clearly no BEFORE was done and doesn't give anyone time to scrounge up references in time for all of them before the PROD expiry. Is it possible to revert or at least expand review time before deletion? I don't think anyone benefits from mass nominations like this.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never seen anything like that before. Take a look at User talk:Geregen2, you will see 30 notifications relating to proposed deletion of articles. I would give various people more time for expanding articles with references for at least one week, Wikipedia would be at risk of deleting the wrong articles at the wrong time before people are given a chance to expand. I would never PROD that many articles on the same day. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Constantin Pigla - confusion

Hi, Cameroonian footballer Constantin Pigla is listed with birth date of 7 May 1990. The article has zero references & two Ext. links. While searching, I'm finding results with Constantin Pigla - birth dates of 13 January 1986 and 14 January 1986. I did explain with copy edit tag at the article. Wondering if anyone here could help? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Soccerway has dob 14 January 1986, but says he was born in Chad. Football Database also has dob 14 January 1986, but says he was born in France. Neither look like they particularly know whether that information is correct or not, but either way, 1990 appears wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

the player doesnt even seem notable enough for a page.Muur (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Muur - the Greek club is not even in the top tier of football, therefore less notable and he does not have articles on any other Wikipedia languages, not even French. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Kits in info boxes

How do you add the extra details to the kits in info boxes? I am trying to add the adidas details to the newly launched Leicester City away kit and can only do the base design. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 22:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Brentford F.C. past grounds?

It's unclear from the article, but were all the past grounds in the Brentford area? Govvy (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're asking for purely recreational purposes, then I found this. However, I am unable to confirm whether those grounds are in the "Brentford area" because I cannnot access A-Z of Bees: Brentford Encyclopaedia, and I couldn't find another source myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Paul, it helps a little, I went to the youtube video and watched the whole thing, it does seem to miss stuff out I feel, however not bad for a bit of information. Not sure if it can be used on wikipedia know. I don't know if you've watched it all the way through, but I felt it was giving me mention-sickness from the bad camera work! heh, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Commemoration section in the association football culture

Hello, I added the commemoration section in the association football culture and some other users polished this section.

Please refer to Commemoration Section and check it out thoroughly, especially attached sources.

I think that this section have reliable sources and This section don't have crucial flaws to delete whole section.

But some user deleted whole section. so dispute occured.

I hope to hear opinions of users with football expertise. Footwiks (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In case you have trouble understanding the above, I believe that the commemoration section of this page, written near entirely by Footwiks, relies entirely non-reliable sources, including WP:OR. This position was also taken up by the now-administrator Firefangledfeathers, who stated in a formal WP:3O: I think the issues with the proposed content are serious enough that we should remove it until it's fixed up. Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors. It would be reasonable to park it here in a new subsection or put it in a userspace subpage.

Footwiks doesn't like that, and completely ignored Firefangledfeathers' response. When I realised that the section had not been removed, I did so myself; Footwiks immediately reverted, started asking other editors to join the discussion, and has now come here. You can judge for yourself whether this is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:OWN. (For the record, the user is also currently the subject of a lengthy discussion at ANI). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

At that time (In January 2023), Participants are only you and me, then WP:3O administrator joined. We didn't hear opinions of various users with football expertise. Let's hear opinions of various users with football expertise here.

In commemoration section, subsection - Shirt swapping have the main article Shirt swapping - No including WP:OR, other subsections: Pennant swapping, Starting XI photograph, Matchday transfer shirt also have reliable sources. No including WP:OR.

Shirt swapping, Pennant swapping, Starting XI photograph, Matchday transfer shirt - I believe that commemoration culture is the very important part of association football culture, especially only association football had these commemoration culture, now other sports adopted these cultures. We are experiencing these longstanding culture and traditions in the football match. In my opinion, commemoration culture should be included in the article - Association football culture

I know that there are some primary sources in the section. But Please read this sourcing guideline.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

WP:3O - Administrator didn't said that We should remove whole commemoration section without any provisos. Administrator said that proposed content in the section should remove it until it's fixed up. "Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors."

I would take some advice on improvement of commemoration section here and If this section have flaws, I want to fix up and improve the section.Footwiks (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If I were you, I would stop trying to weasel out at this point; you have no interest in improving the section. Your only interest is in accusing others of bad faith while gaming the system while doing exactly that yourself (see your WP:CANVASSing of Socccc below). Name one editor who supports you. One. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No opinion. Thanks to four separate, needless notifications, I've been WP:FORUMSHOPped here by Footwiks, an editor I haven't previously interacted with, about a section I haven't edited before and have no interest in, involving subjects in which I have little to no expertise. I don't care if it exists or not. It didn't look particularly well formatted, which can be improved, but if anything I support the suggestion that it be removed from the article and drafted elsewhere. Between this discussion and the broader ANI on the user, I can only wish you luck and ask that you not notify me again about this topic. Hope this helps! -Socccc (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you.Footwiks (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Evans No. 27

Do you agree the official Manchester Utd website is a WP:RS for Jonny Evans squad number 27? https://www.manutd.com/en/players-and-staff/detail/jonny-evans

@PeeJay: doesn't seem to think so and keeps reverting my update on Template:Manchester United F.C. squad JMHamo (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Evans has only been given that number for pre-season, since he's only on a short-term contract with the club. If he is given that number for the Premier League season, that's fine, but we've seen it before where players are given a number in pre-season and then change later. Bastian Schweinsteiger wore 23 in friendlies in 2015 before switching to 31 for competitive matches. The fact is, squad numbers worn in pre-season - while they may be retained later - are not official and are entirely subject to change. Evans could wear number 4 in the next match, and then what are we supposed to do? Change for every game? – Pee Jay 10:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel you are misrepresenting what PeeJay said. They said In United's own news story, they said Evans will wear number 27 for the friendlies, but they have been very careful not to say whether he will continue to do so in any official games., therefore Evans wearing #27 is reliably sourced only for the pre-season friendlies. Whether the squad template refers to regular domestic league season only, to any official tournament, or to any constelation of play by the club is a question that might benefit from discussion (if there isn't a previous discussion an editor can point us to). I would think it can be difficult to have the squad box refer to multiple tournaments or even the last matchday, as in some cases players can wear different numbers in different tournaments (usually in league and international). --SuperJew (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SuperJew, at the moment, Evans is 27 until we're notified otherwise, so I feel the squad template should reflect this. JMHamo (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, if the squad template refers to domestic league season only, than Evans wearing #27 for the pre-season is irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The broader question is not, “is Jonny Evans Manchester United’s number 27?” but “what squad list is the template supposed to reflect?” – Pee Jay 12:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Pre-season squad numbers are not official. Giant Snowman 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's face it, in a few weeks the actual squad numbers will be released. I don't see the point in faffing around with them until that point. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking this page, you can see Evans has a number but Andre Onana does not but there is one included on the latter player's article and the United Wikipedia page. Till now, I have never realised players can change numbers before starting competitively as seen with the reply with Schweinsteiger changing from 23 to 31. However, I do think the number 24 shirt does stay with Onana by looking at the United website. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

In Onana's case, United did dedicate an article on their site to the announcement that he would be wearing number 24 this season, followed up by another article explaining why he picked that number, whereas the mention of Evans' number was a single line in an article about him joining. Not sure why they haven't updated the squad page, but that's why we have to be careful with our sources. – Pee Jay 19:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

[1] "Sutjeska-Cosmos". UEFA.com. Union of European Football Associations. Retrieved 13 July 2023.

[2] Paul, MacInnes (6 February 2023). "Premier League charges Manchester City over alleged financial rule breaches". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

[1]

[1]