Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 163

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Runners-up as an honour

Pinging @PeeJay and @Mattythewhite, who are editing back-and-forth on the Marcus Rashford article about what constitutes an honour. PeeJay is removing runners-up (FA Cup, Europa League with United, European Championship with England) from the section because "coming second (or worse) does not fit the typical definition of “winning” while Matty is reverting as he believes they are honours. I've no horse in this race but think it should be opened up to the wider community to try and gain a consensus. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This comes up every few months and there's always some new weird justification given for removing runners-up honours from honours lists. Honours now means winning does it? Well I guess the meaning of words changes over time as language evolves. Honours no longer means honours, it means winning now. Good to know.--EchetusXe 22:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

And I see the old other pages have it chestnut thrown into the edit summaries. Always a water-tight reasoning. Seasider53 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of second or third place honours, even if they get a medal. But maybe that's just me.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm very old fashioned. I still think football is a teamsport. And yes I know commemorative medals do exist, but if they are so important why do club not publish a list of players who got one and who didn't get one? I don't even know if league winners medals existed in the past. Willem II 1955 players got their medals decades later, and some key players never got one because they were already dead Cattivi (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's one slow edit-war, but I see it right there in the article history, PeeJay you've been warned about edit-warring before. You really need to watch yourself there. As for the honours! Yet again. I have nothing against listing runners-up. And previous consensus for players who don't have a lot of honours it's fine to list runner up medals. This is somewhat borderline, but I see nothing wrong with listing them on Rashford. It's not like he has a list like Messi or Ronaldo. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cup runner up should be an honour, league runner up should not. GiantSnowman 08:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Govvy/John McConnachie

I have this article for one John McConnachie in my sandbox. I was wondering if other people have any sources to add for him at all. Or would be happy to add to the article. Be much appreciated, regards. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't appear on the Fitbastats website for either Rangers or Celtic; the John Litster files have him registered at Celtic between 1903 and 1912 but no senior appearances - they probably let him go to Spurs very soon after signing him but retained his registration for the Scottish league, so he appears on player lists but likely had nothing further to do with the club. There is [https://www.saintsplayers.co.uk/player/john-mcconnachie/ this] for Southampton. Not sure he would meet GNG to be honest and would not be a huge miss to the Wikipedia world with what looks like under 10 top level appearances. Crowsus (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Michael Joyce "Football League Players Records 1888 to 1939" does not include him so he bever played English League football either ColchesterSid (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, just as bad, I thought there would be enough for an article, but now it sounds like a story of showed promise and no substance. I might need to make a list article with these low level Spurs players for the period before they joined the football league. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really seeing anything in 1903 newspapers via WP:TWL other than a brief mention of his joining Spurs and mention of his scoring in a win over New Brompton (grrrr) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

heh, I guess you prefer a date like 11 April 1903. . Govvy (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Some error with football kits

Hi. I uploaded latest kits of Kerala Blasters FC. The body and arms are showing correctly. But the shorts and socks are not reflected in tye article. Can someone please explain what is the problem and help me to fix this. Here is the file for socks https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_socks_keralablasters_away_2023_24.png and for shorts https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_shorts_keralablasters_away_2023_24.png. I added all of them to Kerala Blasters article, but not reflected. On the other hand, this is the file for body https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_kerala_blasters_away_2023_24.png and it has been reflected. Morankutan (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't figure out what is causing the error, but given that both shorts and socks look to be plain purple, could you not just use the shorts and socks colour parameters and thereby not even need a pattern.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried using the colour code 800080 ChrisTheDude. But it is not matching. Could you suggest me some better options. Morankutan (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

No idea why the kit patterns don't work, but I have added the 'indigo' colour to shorts and socks and it looks like a match to me? GiantSnowman 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Now it looks fine. Im also creating two more kits. I am concerned whether the same will happen again. Morankutan (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, from where I can find these color codes so that I can create the kits accordingly. Morankutan (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Web colors is what I use. GiantSnowman 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You'd spelt the name differently: it's _keralablasters_ as one word in the file name but you had _kerala_blasters_ with an underscore in the infobox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

But I followed the same procedure on body and arms and no problem occured. Any idea why? Morankutan (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The filenames for the body and arms have kerala blasters with a space in, which you rendered with an underscore in the infobox; e.g. the name of the body file is

File:Kit body kerala blasters away 2023 24.png

But the filename for the socks doesn't have the space.

File:Kit socks keralablasters away 2023 24.png

You probably intended it to be the same format, but accidentally omitted the space when you saved the file. So when you put the underscore in its name in the infobox, the link went to a nonexistent file. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That was so helpful.!!!! Morankutan (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't know if you were using a phone, but mine sometimes 'helps' by adding spaces (and capitals) into file names and urls, making them useless until they are spotted. Crowsus (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Another general comment on football kits - be careful of infringing copyright with designs. The plainer the better. GiantSnowman 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential International Fixtures

When showing potential international fixtures in the Results and Fixtures section of national team articles, which should be listed as preferred practice:

1)

Australia v Maldives or Bangladesh

2)

Australia v Maldives / Bangladesh

3)

Australia v Maldives
/ Bangladesh

I've seen all three used, just looking for clarity from the community, though have a personal preference for number one. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think can just be "Australia v TBD" --SuperJew (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Even when it's just between two options? Felixsv7 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I would choose option 4. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

4)

Australia v TBD

16 November 2026 WCQ R2	Australia	v	TBD	Australia
		Source

I also support option 4. If the team isn't known, TBD is clearer than listing either/ors. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I would also support option 4. I suggest that we can replace "TBD" with "Winner of semi-final 1" or similar where applicable. – PeeJay 12:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice. With or without italics? Felixsv7 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Without, IMO. – PeeJay 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't use slashes per MOS:SLASH. Use or to indicate that it's one or the other. TBD or Winner of round one pairing two as appears here would probably be more appropriate though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with option 4. Kante4 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with option 4, it has aways been like that, but recently I find "or" and "/" thing in every articles. The link of the tournament is already added in the box, any interested reader can easily navigate to know more. Drat8sub (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I like Option 4 and you could also include a [note] which says it will be the winner of ABC vs XYZ. RedPatch (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Australia v TBD

16 November 2026 WCQ R2	Australia	v	TBD	Australia
		Source

Just to amend that slightly:

Australia v TBD

16 November 2026 WCQ R2	Australia	v	TBD	Australia
		Source
Note: Australia will face the winner of the First round match between Maldives and Bangladesh

What do you think @RedPatch:? Felixsv7 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Tournaments

@Stevie fae Scotland: Just following on from your MOS:SLASH contribution, what do you (or anyone for that matter) think should be done when a fixture acts as qualification for two tournaments? I've attached another three examples below.

A)

Winner of R1 Pairing 2 v Australia

6 June 2026 WCQ R2	Winner of R1 Pairing 2	v	Australia
		Source

B)

Qatar v Kuwait

21 March 2024 (2024-03-21) World Cup & Asian Cup qualification

Qatar

v

Kuwait

Qatar

C)

India v Winner of R1 Pairing 1

26 March 2024 (2024-03-26) 2026 WCQ / 2027 ACQ	India	v	Winner of R1 Pairing 1	Guwahati, India
--:-- UTC+5:30				Stadium: Indira Gandhi Athletic Stadium

Any input would be appreciated! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case, B as not everyone will know what WCQ R2 means. Slashes shouldn't be used in place of and. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be consistent with the name of the article linked to --SuperJew (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For result list articles option B is best but for the NT article writing the name of whole tournament will enlarge the box and will consume lot of unnecessary space since there will be lot of matches in that section, best way to write is 2026 FIFA WCQ / 2027 AFC ACQ which a reader can easily understand and since link is provided interested reader can also navigate through both the articles and also consistent with the name of the tournament. Drat8sub (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

But as has been pointed out, WP:SLASH dictates that slashes shouldn't be used. Also WCQ is not consistent with the name of the tournament, as it should instead be written World Cup qualification. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Last-minute goal

Is the Last-minute goal article really suitable for Wikipedia? It just seems to be a list of random last-minute goals with no real inclusion criteria and also clear WP:RECENTISM. Hashim-afc (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Some entries are more notable than others and many entries are unsourced anyway. It's one of those debatable situations about which ones to keep and which ones should not. E.g. the text UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group D – San Marino vs Republic of Ireland, 7 February 2007: Stephen Ireland scored four minutes into stoppage time to spare Ireland's blushes and prevented San Marino from scalping its first point in European Championship qualifying with a 2–1 victory. for example did not affect qualification to the proper finals for Republic of Ireland as they finished 10 points behind the lower qualified spot. That should be more likely not to be included to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It could definitely be worded better but I'd say that entry is valid from a San Marino point of view, if (as it implies) it is the closest they've ever come to a competitive point. Crowsus (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Footballalphabet.com

Is Footballalphabet.com a reliable source? It seems to be a club ranking website, but it seems to have quite a strange ranking system (Palmeiras and Al Ahly SC as the 4th and 7th best team in the world respectively for example). On a recent addition to Leicester City F.C., there is a new 'club ranking' section that uses this website. I assumed the only accepted source for these would be UEFA or FIFA. Is this an acceptable source? All the best Michaeldble (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

At first glance, I would say they are not reliable. While they do explain their methodology for calculating their rankings, they don't really explain how they came up with the values they give for certain competitions, so it all seems quite arbitrary. UEFA, however, clearly explains how to calculate club coefficients. Likewise, FIFA clearly explains how to calculate the Men's and Women's World Rankings and publishes when changes are made to the formulae. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC) UPDATE I have added an unreliable source tag. 00:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Surely that's unreliable. When I've checked what ranking Swansea are placed, when you hover above the grey square next to the team name, apparantly I may be able to contribute to the site by adding the logo to it. Also note that, like transfermarkt, that there is a login button on the top right of the website. If in doubt, we should not use this website for sourcing Wikipedia content. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It has a domestic club ranking that has Premier League Luton Town below quite a few League Two teams. It seems very unreliable to me, should I remove that section from Leicester City F.C.? Michaeldble (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the table with a suitably descriptive edit summary. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Kyle Walker

Would someone mind monitoring Kyle Walker, as there are a lot of premature updates re his first England goal, and I've already made a few reverts on the page. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Edward Ernest Bowen and the formation of the FA

Hello all. Just over from WP:CRICKET. I'm expanding the article on the above first-class cricketer and came across some unreferenced text in his article which says "he was involved in the establishment of the English Football Association". Would anyone be able to confirm if this was the case? Cheers, StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The part about him playing in the first two FA Cup finals is certainly true, but I just checked his profile in Keith Warsop's very well-researched book "The Early FA Cup Finals and the Southern Amateurs" and it makes no mention of him being directly involved in the establishment of the FA -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for taking a look. For now, I have removed the unreferenced claim about his involvement in establishing the FA. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Flags for clubs in international tournaments

We have recently gotten into a discussion on this subject, and would like to get more opinions and avoid an edit war. The general question is about when listing an international tournament on a club's season page, should we list same club's flag or not (while listing the rest of the teams' flags in the tournament). Specifically it came up on 2023–24 Macarthur FC season#AFC Cup and 2023–24 Melbourne City FC season#AFC Champions League regarding if we should show the Australian flag next to Macarthur in the footballbox. FastCube and myself think we should - I think it is preferable in name of consistency in that section and that if we only have one out of 4 (or more if they will progress) teams without a flag, it seems odd and raises questions. Matilda Maniac on the other hand thinks we shouldn't saying it's for consistency with the rest of the article, yes, as the WP:ICONDECORATION flags are not shown for the Macarthur team throughout the article on the pre-season friendlies section, or the Australia Cup section, or the A-League matches. More thoughts and reasonings are welcome. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If MOS:DECOR is going to be applied to Macarthur and Melbourne in a section on international tournaments, then it also applies to all other teams in those tournaments. Even on a team's own article, flags of nationality do not serve as mere decoration when dealing with international tournaments. The missing Australian flag in the football boxes for Macarthur and Melbourne disrupts the visual appearance. Either add the Australian flag to the football boxes or remove the flags from all the other teams; regardless, all flags should remain in the group table and may be enough to convey the desired information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Can it not be assumed that a team without a flag next to their name is of the same nationality as the team the article is about? So for the most part, there's no need to add any Australian flags? – PeeJay 13:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We should not assume that all readers will readily make that inference. What if Barcelona and Barcelona were to take part in a tournament with Real Madrid? It would be very confusing for Barcelona to have their country's flag next to their name, but for Barcelona not to have theirs. I stand by my statement that when providing information about an international tournament (e.g. UEFA Champions League) in a club's article, any group tables or knockout brackets should include all national flags and the football boxes should either have flags for all teams or for none of them. When speaking on domestic tournaments, then it is fair to presume that all teams are from the same nation; for example, the US Open Cup is not open to the 3 Canadian MLS teams regardless of their placement in league standings. MOS:DECOR should be applied consistently throughout an article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If FC Barcelona and Barcelona SC were to play each other in a match covered by Wikipedia, I would imagine we wouldn't be so short-sighted as to pipe them both to Barcelona and Barcelona. Of course articles on international tournaments (e.g. 2023–24 UEFA Champions League) should use flags for all teams since no one nation takes precedence, but in an article about a single club (e.g. 2023–24 FC Barcelona season), it makes sense to leave out the flags that relate to the nation the subject is from. We already do that in List of English football transfers summer 2023. – PeeJay 17:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Barcelona example you brought shows the Spanish flag for Barca. The List of English football transfers summer 2023 example is not the same format, and also includes a note explaining All players and clubs without a flag are English... --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the Barcelona article was an example of what I was suggesting, I was using it as an example of an article where what I was suggesting could be applied. – PeeJay 18:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the flags next to clubs are supposed to indicate the relevance of the competition being played by the club. For example: the domestic league has no flags as it's one country with teams competing against each other, hence no need for them. Domestic cups I'm not too sure on, like with the Australia Cup there are national clubs and state clubs involved, which I think means if a club is playing a national club; they don't have a flag, whereas if they're playing a state team; a flag of their state is listed. Friendlies with flags should be necessary as anyone can play anyone, whether they play a team from their own country or not in a friendly. Continental competitions have multiple country-based teams are involved, so the flags should be there beside the names.

These are all based off what I've seen with other club season articles and I believe the reasons I've talked about above is why. FastCube (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Realistically, MOS:FLAG is where we need to look. We need to check and see if the subject is actually represent that country. Not just that they come from that country. I'd make the arguement that representing a national team meets that, as would international competitions where there are places awarded to teams based on performance.

I don't think having flags for teams that happen to be from a different country meets this. I don't see why we ever give flags next to players really, as they don't represent countries at club level. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Or you could just negate the whole issue by using a table which can be coded to meet WP:DTT when the footballbox doesn't... Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on MLS season articles

Just a heads up: Drew1830 has been deleting large sections of cited content from MLS season articles (such as 2011 Major League Soccer season) and replacing them with uncited summaries that barely cover what was deleted. The editor has been uncooperative in the past, doesn't provide summaries, and doesn't follow procedures to prevent edit warring, so I'm at a loss with how to deal with them. Anyone willing to help? SounderBruce 19:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

SounderBruce is an idiot who doesn't allow a process to be completed before he reflexively undoes edits. Relax, school marm. ~~ Drew1830 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Having reviewed the edits, I can see that there is currently no benefit to the changes being made. In addition, this user's attitude is pretty poor. – PeeJay 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If you don't see the benefit then I don't trust your judgment. I have so far not seen a single reason to grant you any authority on this topic. ~~ Drew1830 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA. If your edits are ongoing, then use {{in use}} or at least draft them up. Leaving around uncited material for weeks is not acceptable. SounderBruce 20:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As expected, Drew1830 is now reverting edits without discussion. Seasider53 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss what? You clowns are useless and have apparently been a part of the previous efforts that were so incompetent. Drew1830 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The best part is that you've been on Wikipedia for 18 years but act very juvenile. Did you create your account in the womb? Seasider53 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hat-tricks

Does anyone know of a reliable source that would show all the EFL hat-tricks scored by a team in recent seasons, together in one list (so that it's clear that those are indeed all the hat-tricks scored in the time period)? 11v11 has a "hat-tricks" tab for each team, but for some bizarre and annoying reason, it only shows hat-tricks scored in whichever division the team is in currently in...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing you know of these articles? List of EFL Championship hat-tricks, League One, League Two. Otherwise what's wrong with using one/two/three sources of worldfootball.net? championship, league one, league two.--EchetusXe 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't actually aware of those articles, or of worldfootball.net, so thank you. Shame the worldfootball lists, rather bizarrely, don't actually indicate which team the player was playing for........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In most cases easy enough to work out based on the scoreline. If not, click the score and you'll see the match details. --SuperJew (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sunday League in player's article

Jaystarinell is keen to add to Adam Bygrave's infobox that he played and scored in a Sunday league game against the Nag's Head (not a gag - this was genuinely the team he played against!!). Can I confirm that the consensus view is that such levels of football do not merit inclusion in a player's article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have spoken to adam bygrave regarding this and is happy for this to be added. But as you said this was a cup so does not count so I will continue to add his stats when he plays league games. @ChrisTheDude i would do as your told Jaystarinell (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"I have spoken to adam bygrave regarding this and is happy for this to be added" - it is not up to Adam Bygrave to decide what is included in the article about him, Wikipedia policies and consensus views among editors trump his own personal feelings. Also please read WP:CIVIL and do not tell other editors to "do as they are told".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

your the boss Jaystarinell (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Only in the rare instance it is reported by reliable sources (I can think of only one instance: Elliott Nevitt's early career involvement with a Sunday league team in Liverpool which reached the final of the FA Sunday Cup). Otherwise, no - appearances for Sunday league teams definitely don't merit inclusion. Paul W (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess Bygrave would be happier with him scoring against the Nag's Head on his article over the fact that he made "numerous racist, disabled and paedophile based comments on social networking sites which are totally unacceptable in any walk of life". I'd only include pub football as a passing mention in the text of the article, if mentioned in reliable sources. EchetusXe 14:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Loan end dates in club squad lists

Should we include the end dates of loans in club squad lists such as Manchester United F.C.#First-team squad? User:Chris Calvin and User:Red Devil are arguing that we shouldn't. Chris's reasoning is simply that we don't do it on any other club articles, but I've been editing here for more than 15 years and that seems to be a new development; besides, "we don't do it on other pages" is not a good argument by itself. Red Devil's reasoning is somewhat more developed, claiming that including the end dates damages the aesthetics of the table because it forces the entry onto two lines; I would argue that this is an isolated issue for people using especially small screens, but I'm aware that I mostly use 24-27 inch monitors on the PCs I use most often. They also claim that "it's a current squad" (their bolding); not sure what this means, but I assume they're saying that these players are part of the squad now, so it shouldn't matter when they're scheduled to leave, similar to the way we don't list players whose contracts are coming to an end. In my opinion, this is a completely different issue; loans, by definition, are temporary, and the end date should be listed so that the reader knows whether it's a season-long loan, a six-month loan or a one-month loan. I should also add that those two users haven't been removing the end dates for players who are currently on loan away from Manchester United, so it seems a bit of a double standard. Anyway, what does everyone else think? – PeeJay 08:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I endorse the view that the only really important thing is that the player is currently part of the squad and it isn't really relevant how long that will apply for. If in September Template F.C. have Dave Template (season-long loan) and Bob Template (loan till Christmas) in their squad, does it really matter for the purposes of showing the club's current squad that Dave will still be there in April but Bob won't be (notwithstanding the fact that season-long loans can be curtailed early)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly this doesn't apply in the dizzy heights of the Premier League but it does lower down: if a club signs a player on a short-term contract (not a loan, but an actual contract that only runs for, say, three months), would you want to have "under contract till 30 November" (or whenever) in brackets after his name in the squad listing? After all, that contract is temporary too, and could potentially be shorter than the loan of a player listed above or below him...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not a recent development as I've never seen it listed on a Scottish club article (I can't speak to English ones though as I don't tend to edit them). I'd agree with ChrisTheDude though. My thinking is that people who want to know when the loan will end will go directly to where they think that information will be – the player's article or the club season article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I used to be in favour of them, but now the loan market has changed and short term loans don't exist any more at EFL level. So instead of one loanee departing on 10 November, another on 10 December, and another until the end of the season, they all tend to be there until the end of the season and so it's pretty unnecessary to include it and it can look untidy. Still keep it in the 'Out on loan' section because they tend to be one line per entry anyway so there is no downside visually.--EchetusXe 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I was a bit worried it might not be helpful to add the date, for mobile, small screens access. But it's not too bad. Even still, I wouldn't add the date. Like said above it doubles lines and isn't the best on display. That information can be accessed from season page and player pages. It's just overkill on information. So ye, remove the date. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're not going to have it in the main squad, I'd remove it from the "Out on loan" section too. No point having one rule for one and one for another. – PeeJay 10:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's more useful in lower league clubs that loan out players to non-League and may still be on short term loans of varying lengths.--EchetusXe 14:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

every club page lists the dates dunno what the opening part is on aboutMuur (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

every club page lists the dates - this one doesn't, nor does this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.....I could go on....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

For consistency's sake though, I think we should make a decision to either have end dates for both incoming and outgoing loans, or neither. – PeeJay 13:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was responding to Muur, who said "every club page lists the dates dunno what the opening part is on about", which I interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as being a claim that all club articles do use end dates and therefore Chris Calvin's argument was unfounded. Which clearly isn't the case...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Im reffering to when they loan players out, loaning in doesnt list as loaned in until whenever but all the pages do say loaned out until whenever. Muur (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was my misunderstanding, for which I apologise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been using Wikipedia to follow various squads since 2007 and have just spent the last couple of hours searching the page edits from a couple of dozen clubs across multiple levels of the league pyramid going back as far as 2006 and haven't found end loan dates incorporated into any squad lists except the Manchester United page, and even then you seem to have been the only one maintaining this practice, as it always seems to have triggered edit wars of varying degrees which usually end in the end dates being omitted.

I realise that's an extremely small sample size, but it just doesn't seem to have ever been common practice to include the loan end date in the active squad.

Personally, I think including the end date is both irrelevant and untidy. As has been pointed out, players on loan can potentially have longer contracts than players permentantly employed by the club, and loans can be cut short before the listed date. A squad list should display the players at the club at that given point in time. Ryancorven (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The squad list does display the players at the club at that given point in time. Including the loan end date doesn't prevent that. Anyway, all I want is some consistency, since people were removing the end dates for the loans into the club and not removing them for the loans out of the club. I'd rather include them both, others would rather not, but either way we need to be consistent. – PeeJay 14:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify, I feel a squad list for the club's main page should be as brief as is needed. Contract information, which ultimately what the end date of a loan is, is just unnecessary clutter that I feel better belongs on the appropriate section of the club's current season page.

Still, I sympathise to a point. Having looked back at so many older pages, at some point the dates crept in on the outgoing loans while in-squad loans remained dateless. While I find the additional information in the outgoing loans far less intrusive than in the active squad list, again it's information that feels better placed in the current season page. Ryancorven (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Arranging multiple Notes sections

In the page for David Ruiz (footballer, born 2004), there is a note in the infobox and another in the stats table. I tried to set it up so that the note in the infobox would appear at the bottom of the page by the References, while the note for the stats table would appear below the stats table. However, because the stats table comes first, it is lumping in the infobox note in the stats table section. Is there any way to fix this? RedPatch (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. RedPatch (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Cristian Romero (footballer - born 1998) bad move.

Can an admin or page mover rights user revert back the move? @SwansElite: There was no reason to do that move, and not only that, not even moved correctly per name formatting. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 16:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that user is a sockpuppet of someone, since they're a "new" editor whose userpage has a list of users they dislike (most of whom haven't interacted with this user account) that's longer than the number of contributions the account has made (23). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Good spot, it's a sock. Blocked and tagged. GiantSnowman 16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That was only possible because SwansElite has not been globally locked as reported a week ago. By the way, I have reverted the Paraguyan one back to Cristian Romero (Paraguyan footballer) to complete the cleanup here. I assume everyone's fine with the nationality dab for these Romero's for now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: please can you take care of the Paraguayan one as well - I've misspelled it without realising until 17:56PM today and, like Govvy, cannot change it back myself. Cheers -- Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you. Much appreciated, regards. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Nottingham Forest F.C.

Wondering if an admin can protect the above article. There constant unsourced changes about a supposed Jonjo Shelvey loan move, which isn't supported in his article. Seasider53 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed now. Seasider53 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Paulie Calafiore

Paulie Calafiore has been nominated for deletion. Sources re: soccer career can be found on the article's talk page. AfD discussion and/or article improvements welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• The article claims this person played for Colorado Rapids, and some sources say he played for Colorado Rapids, but he never played for Colorado Rapids. Never signed, not on the roster, nothing on the MLS website... possibly trialed, though, but nothing to confirm that. What do we do in a situation like this where a supposedly reliable source prints something that's very, very easily verifiable as incorrect? SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Serie D

Are 3 season in Serie D enough to be Notable? Slancio2 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this about a player or a club, and is this the highest level the player/club has played at? SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about a player, and yeah, this player only played 3 season in Serie D. Slancio2 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No then as the player would most likely fail WP:GNG. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 16:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, is just one appearance in Serie C enough to be notable? Slancio2 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A professional appearance is notable, but I am not sure it is enough to warrant an article. Who is the player? SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.transfermarkt.it/graziano-nocera/profil/spieler/478241 Slancio2 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This player has played 271 games in Serie C/Lega pro (they're the same thing) Slancio2 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a transfermarkt link which is discouraged due to being user sourced, but going past that it looks to be a player who floated around the 3rd and 4th division of Italian football who now manages teams in the 4th to 5th tier. I don't think this player/manager is notable enough to have their own article. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The only requirement is that they pass GNG. If you can find reliable independent sources that cover the player, then go ahead. If not, then likely it will be deleted. The league they play in doesn't matter anymore.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok didn't know that the club doesn't matter anymore SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 18:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'll do it in my sandbox, when everything is ready I will make it public. Slancio2 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ortizesp @SparklessPlug see User:Slancio2/sandbox. Slancio2 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks to be alright at first glance, only problem is a transfermarkt ref. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 18:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Article is poorly written and formatted - I have begun the clean up. GiantSnowman 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I'm still studying, ;) Slancio2 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I used two different links as the source of the statistics, https://www.transfermarkt.it/graziano-nocera/leistungsdatendetails/spieler/478241 , https://www.carrierecalciatori.it/it/giocatori/16978-Graziano%20Nocera Slancio2 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Once you get rid of Transfermarkt ref I think it'd be good enough for mainspace. References have to be from reliable and reputable sources, while Transfermarkt is fan-edited. Very good attempt for a first try! Ortizesp (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ortizesp Honestly it's not really like that ( I also used another source next to it), on transfermarkt before being modified by football fans they have to provide a source (like wikipedia) but there it takes days for the modification to be accepted by staffers. From my point of view I find it very reliable. Slancio2 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you need the transfermarkt source? If everything on that page is sourced to something else then just delete it. It's not a reliable source. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Who said it was eliminated? However I have another sources for appearances, goals and assists. https://www.carrierecalciatori.it/it/giocatori/16978-Graziano%20Nocera and https://www.calciotel.it/scheda-allenatore/4981/NOCERA%20Graziano Slancio2 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we finish the discussion and publish it today? Slancio2 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TRANSFERMARKT for why it should not be used. Kante4 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I understand, but besides transfermarkt there are 2 other sources of statistics... Slancio2 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

So... what are we gonna do? Slancio2 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Move the article from your sandbox to Draft:Graziano Nocera and submit it for review. Assuming you speak Italian, why don't you make a page for Graziano Nocera on the Italian Wikipedia? SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons

I just like to point out that Stevie fae Scotland has some bizarre notion about some kind of consensus, which honestly, there really isn't any direct consensus and seems to want to sabotage the Club seasons template by removing possible option. Also like to point out, is he edit-warring, WP:3RR?? I am fed-up with this notion of removing option that doesn't violate anything. I opened a conversation on the talk page there, but it's flat out ignored. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've pointed out four previous discussions (one of which links to a further discussion) where the consensus is to use a table and not collapsible football boxes so I'm not sure why that amounts to a "bizarre notion". Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The page is a style guide! And you're removing alternative uses! :/ How many project pages are there with this format? Of the 200,000+ footy pages? How many are season pages, there are thousands, you can't just up and dandy them. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because something exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean it should and there was no consensus to add the collapsible football box to the style guide. Not every editor is aware of it either and some will base articles they edit in good faith on other articles which use the football box. These things happen but when it is discussed, consensus is to use a table. I appreciate you have a different view so perhaps we should let others have their say. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The template is a clear consensus by use case. There is no need for a discussion to say what people are already doing when people are already doing it. The majority, the vast majority, of season articles use the template because it is a WYSIWYG template, which Is easy to pick and fill in for the new and casual Wikipedia user. There is no need to argue over what is already being done on the vast majority of season article pages. Simply noting the blindingly obvious on the MOS is not going to change what is already happening, and that is people are picking up and using the template, and not using the frankly complex, to the new and causal Wikipedia user, tables that are supposedly the only thing which should be used. If a few people say something but the majority of people ignore them and carry on regardless, no matter how much talking there is about it...it is a clear case of consensus, and probably on of the clearest there is on Wikipedia. Let's not argue about adding the blindingly obvious to the MOS. Regardless of if the MOS is changed, the template will be used regardless as I don't think new or casual users check or even know about this wikiproject or the MOS. This is a clear-cut case of use of commonsense being needed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If new users disregard the MOS, they should be reverted. WP:COLLAPSE is quite clear that information should not be hidden in collapsible sections, and furthermore the template contains more info than is actually necessary in a quite space-inefficient format. – PeeJay 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not a sensible way forward, reverting the use of the template for the table. This is a clear consensus by use, due to the mass use of the template by masses of users over the table. Reverting users for using the template instead of the table is also a good way to scare off and not encourage or retain new users.

Regardless of the content of the template, if information should or should not be hidden, or space efficiency, the templates are used on the vast majority of football articles by considerably more users than here or that use the tables. It is simply ludicrous to state that here in this discussion we are going to change that.

This is a clear-cut case of consensus by use and nothing said here will change that.

I have looked back at the futile attempts to turn back the tide of using the templates over the table and it is fruitless. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lots of words that don't mean anything. Repeating them doesn't strengthen your argument either. Seasider53 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And “it’s how it’s done in a bunch of articles” is even less of an argument in football articles, given our recent discoveries about how a couple of editors think season articles should look (a lot of them are still chock-full of redundant data). Seasider53 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of consensus by use here, of the template being used over the table, and it renders this whole discussion moot. Nothing said here will change or stop the use of the template over the table by the vast majority of editors. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It isn't moot if there are other editors who disagree with you. Consensus by use is fine if it never gets challenged. This issue has been raised multiple times and each time consensus has been the same ie- tables are preferred. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is moot when it doesn't matter what is said here as the behaviour and editing actions of those who are not taking part here is not going to change. This is clear from the previous discussions over the years and the MOS devised by this Wikiproject itself being roundly ignored.

These discussions feel very echo-chamber, and as such have no bearing on those outside of it, which is why no matter the in depth discussion here, it will have no bearing on those outside. As those outside, will not change their editing behaviour, in so far as continuing to use the template.

This feels like trying to dry out the ocean with a teaspoon.

Also for the record consensus by use here is not just a couple of editors on one or two articles. It is probably 95% of all articles in relation to football seasons. Which is probably thousands of editors if not more. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's just not true. Football box collapsible is used on approximately 24,000 articles. There are approximately 28,000 season articles so even if every one of the articles it is used on were season articles that would only equate to 85%. Collapsible football boxes are used on plenty of different types of articles including individual match articles, cup and league season articles, country season articles (XXXX-YY in Fooian football), national team articles and national team results articles so that would at best suggest it was 50/50. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there you go it shows no matter what either side says nothing is going to change and both seem to have obvious use by action. Rendering this whole futilie back and forth moot. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is it moot? Given the sheer number of articles at play, it's entirely possible that some people have simply never come across articles formatted any other way. It should be our goal to ensure that all football articles follow the MOS we have come up with here, and we can do that by informing editors of the MOS. The collapsible box format has been deprecated by this community, so it should no longer be in use. – PeeJay 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is moot because no one will pay attention to what is said here. It is clear no matter how many discussions are had on this Wikiproject, editors outside of this and other discussions and this Wikiproject will pay no attention to this or discussions., no matter the outcome.

Also this wikiproject may have deprecated the use of the template, but it seems that whether or not the use is endorsed by this wikiproject or not is meaningless. The deprecation is being ignored by those still using it, not through malice or bad faith, but for other reasons, such as potential simplicity and ease of use. Showing even more the futility of the discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is clear from the previous discussion being roundly and wholly ignored by editors outside of this bubble. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors not partaking in a discussion is no reason to not seek consensus on an issue. There are no obligations on editors to participate in any discussion but if they don't, they can't complain if consensus goes against them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You can seek a consensus amongst those who are taking part here, but if that discussion has no impact on those outside of the discussion then it is a moot discussion. It is clear these discussions have no effect on other editors who do not partake. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussions would have more effect if more editors were aware of them. Ignorance of a resolution may be an excuse to ignore it, but if we don't tell people that template is deprecated, they'll carry on using it. Instead of being an apologist for a deprecated template, why not help spread the word of its status? – PeeJay 21:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow - 'an apologist for a depreciated template' thats a bit strong. Care to not go after the contributor. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that not what you're doing? Feel free to prove me wrong by working to reduce the use of that template. – PeeJay 15:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well this got personal and hostile quickly and unnecessarily. Please stop. It is not helpful. Let's get back to the point and the content.

Getting back to the point this is just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, there must be a seeking of a community wide consensus for this to have any meaningful effect or else it is a moot chit-chat about something which will have no effect, and no influence. It is clear from multiple attempted discussions to influence those outside of this Wikiproject and outside of the discussion by agreeing (apparently) a local consensus (I have not been show where this occurred), that the wider consensus is use the template as it is still being used on modern day football articles up the wazoo compared to the table. I not the stats shown earlier but those are mainly historic season articles which attract committed and long term editors, not the casual or new editor. (Redacted) 16:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a local consensus. It was discussed in this featured list nomination, a process independent from WP:FOOTY, which resulted in a change from football boxes to a table and a request for comment, again independent from WP:FOOTY, which found consensus for switching from football boxes to tables provided the same level of information was included. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link please, to you claimed discussion.

Also it is clear and now getting beyond silly the amount of so-called consensus creating discussions that are roundly having zero effect on the editing behaviour of the vast majority of editors on modern season articles. More evidence of mootness, futility and ineffectiveness of this and all of the other so-called consensus resulting discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to discern your end goal here. Are you just trying to say people should do whatever the heck they want? Surely we should have the goal of some level of uniformity across football articles? We tried to establish a MOS for football articles, it's not this WikiProject's fault if people are ignoring it, especially if the only reason they're ignoring it is because they don't know about it. What possible reason could there be not to encourage people to follow the same format for similar articles? – PeeJay 18:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Not tat all. I am pointing out a consensus is claimed (although I have not seen any discussion reach a consensus), yet no one but seemingly a few members of this Wikiproject are adhering to this claimed consensus. This clearly demonstrates all the chit-chats are not having any effect on changing things one way or the other.

Your final comment I agree with, but you are never going to get users to switch to an unfamiliar and complex (to new and casual users) syntax-built table, which when it fails breaks the whole table and sometimes the whole article, from using a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) template. The rule of Keep It Simple will always mean the simpler-to-use system will always be used by the majority of users. It is simple path of least resistance. In this case, the template is plug-and-play and needs no prior knowledge of complex and confusing Wikipedia table syntax. The table on the other hand requires deep knowledge of how Wikipedia table syntax works, which over the aeons new and casual users of Wikipedia have shown by their actions they are not going to engage with or use. Human nature is not going to change to the more difficult and complex, no matter how many discussions are had. I honestly think this needs to go bigger bolder and far wider than the users here as this is going nowhere now. there is a seeming intractability here which is not productive. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any discussion reach a consensus - I've linked to two above which have formal closes and resulted in consensus against the football box. I've also linked to a further three discussions here and when I asked for your thoughts on why they don't amount to a consensus, you didn't elaborate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

They show no consensus, and not a consensus as has been claimed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Simply stating something does not make it true. You're the only person to contest the consensus in those discussions so please do help me understand and elaborate as to why. I'd be particularly interested to know how a formal RfC close which resulted in a change from football boxes to a table does not show consensus for that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In one discussion it is claimed 'there is no consensus to change from the tables' that is an assumption of a negative consensus, which is invalid. When a discussion is had and there is no consensus either way that demonstrates no consensus for either the table or the template, not that the template is dismissed from use and the table is approved for use.

The Germany discussion linked to clearly shows nothing relevant to this discussion and that is just a strange addition to this discussion.

The other discussion clearly ends without any discussion being reached.

A consensus can and does change over time. Clinging on to years old inconclusive discussion to try and say these show the original way is the consensus way is absolutely farcical.

Please show actual discussions with clear consensus for the use of the table and showing clearly that the table should not be used.

Not irrelevant discussion and discussions with no conclusive outcome. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So a formal RfC close which resulted in a change from football boxes to a table does show consensus then? Good stuff, glad we've established that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this discussion. I have not seen any such discussion provided. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It is linked above. My comment from 17:32. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

thta sepcifically states the following as the close "No Consensus to switch from template to table" - so no that does not support scrpping templates for tables. Care to try again. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap what a lot of.... anyway, Template:footballbox doesn't have collapsable options in mobile view or small readers, it's fully expanded and all information is available. It complies with ACCESS as readers will read all the data. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it does. I also agree this venue is now exhausted and I have listed this for more formal dispute resolution here PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It also takes up far too much space. The wikitable solution is much more efficient. – PeeJay 21:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Colin Murphy

Colin Murphy was actually born 1944 rather than 1950 in the page name

Apologies - I'm not sure of the process to correct the name of the page or how to make a redirection if necessary? ColchesterSid (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

sorted. Crowsus (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nemanja Vidić Sources and Legacy in Lead

Hello, everyone, There is an ongoing edit war I am attempting to end between Spirit Fox99 and myself, which is currently taking place on Nemanja Vidić's Wikipedia article.

Currently, as of the last edit that they rolled back to, the article states the following in the lead, concerning his legacy, that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the sport."

According to Wikipedia guidelines, these sources (from websites such as SportBible.com, TheFootballLovers.com, and TheTopTens.com, would not be deemed reliable or reputable journalistic sources; moreover, some of them are secondary sources citing other more reliable ones, for which I have so far been able to find primary sources, however. I have therefore tried to find more reliable sources that corroborate this statement (something with which I agree, I might add), and implored said user to do so as well, but have so far been unsuccessful unfortunately. I have found more reliable sources that instead described Vidić as being one of the best defenders of his generation and in the history of the Premier League, so I modified the content in the lead to include the following statement and sources, namely that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the Premier League, as well as one of the best defenders of his generation."

However, my edits have been repeatedly reverted, even when I, and other users, such as PeeJay, have reverted these back explaining why the original sources were flawed. The other user disagrees, and believes that they are in fact acceptable sources. I would like to bring an end to this once and for all, and resolve it and come to a consesus so as to avoid similar conflicts and issues in the future, so I please ask for your input on this. Thank you,

Messirulez Messirulez (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Domestic and international season

Just wondering, why doesn't WikiProject Football have an article template for domestic and international cup seasons? SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@SparklessPlug: Could you please elaborate? What exactly do you mean? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean why does WikiProject Football not have an style guide (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players) for cup seasons? SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair question. By all means knock up a draft and post details of it here so the community can have a say whether or not to adopt it (with or without changes). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ronnie McKinnon Scotsman article

Hi folks. Ronnie McKinnon died today. His article relies heavily on a broken reference, an interview with The Scotsman. The URL ([1]) strangely redirects to a completely unrelated article. I was unable to find a working archive copy at archive.org and I was unable to find the article at newspapers.com. Does anyone have an idea how we can fix the reference? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

For more recent article in major newspapers try Gale [2] Cattivi (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The article in question was in ProQuest, which is available through The Wikipedia Library. Hack (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks to both of you. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Block evasion

This and that are quite obviously the same person, the one ending in 108 continues to edit after the latter got blocked. I've detected more editing problems when looking through other edits as well, suggesting the IP addresses have been used by a block evading user. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Added this one as well which obviously follows in the same editing pattern as the ones already listed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That one is the same as the second one in your original post. – PeeJay 23:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, well spotted. I thought I linked this one. If any more of that happens then I shall take it to ANI. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel this is more suited for WP:ANI than this forum --SuperJew (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

FAC in need of reviews

Just a heads up: MLS Cup 2019 has an ongoing FAC that is in need of reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments. SounderBruce 00:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unresolved issue regarding omitting a charge (in this case in the Man City article)

Two months ago I brought this up (I've added my comment after the comments from then):

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. 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)

I hadn't looked at the article since then but I see that charge has not been reinstated despite an agreement it should be (unless I've missed that it has been?). The article should have been tagged with fan POV (due to the fan tone) and NPOV (due to a fan omitting the Premier League charge against the club). Just for the sake of contrast, the Russell Brand news (which prompted me to return to this issue), his article now correctly contains the allegations against him (not even a charge yet as is the case with Man City). Nampa DC (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Squad templates

To your attention:

back in the day we used to have both (squad templates), but here's the thing: due to bureaucratic issues, B-SAD was created from the "loins" of C.F. Os Belenenses, but the latter never ceased to exist, beginning to compete again in the regional leagues. Maybe due to that, its squad template was proposed for deletion, and deleted.

But they have reached the professionals again in 2023 (Liga Portugal 2), whereas B-SAD has folded (after being relegated on the field as well!). I think it would be appropriate, thus, to change/adjust the B-SAD template (the other used to be called, if i recall well, "C.F. Os Belenenses squad").

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting case, since B-SAD and Benelenses used to be one club, then briefly became two separate clubs, and now B-SAD ended. To preserve the history, I think you could probably boldly request the B-SAD template be moved to Template:C.F. Os Belenenses squad, and then just update the squad from there. Ortizesp (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@RevampedEditor: According to here, B-SAD are still active in the regional leagues. That's why I was WP:BOLD and removed the redirect that @Ortizesp mentioned and added the squad placed in the article there. Plus, there's a tag (that only appears in the template article itself) to distinguish both clubs. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70: many thanks for your input (and i again thank Ortizesp as well)! But i swear i did not know that B-SAD still existed, i thought they had (even if playing in the regional divisions) merged with C.D. Cova da Piedade (oops, nevermind, that decision has been revoked https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-3/b-sad/detalhe/cova-da-piedade-e-bsad-revogam-acordo-de-fusao-celebrado-em-marco).

Have a nice weekend both of you! --RevampedEditor (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An article for worldfootball.net ?

Greetings, Recently, I was involved in discussion of whether worldfootball.net is a reliable source & the answer was "Yes". Just searched the talk Archive here & see worldfootball.net is mentioned 40 times. Also with Wikipedia Search, over 30,000 articles. So asking if anyone here would like to create a new article specifically worldfootball.net? Doing that is beyond me, so asking here. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need an article about that site. Can you find any actual coverage of the site in independent media? – PeeJay 16:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Just thought to pass along the idea - I have no COI whatsoever & in fact only a slight interest in this sport, only attended one college game-exciting even though the home team score nill. Just thought that since worldfootball is referenced in so many articles it might be interesting to read more (history, growth, awards & accomplishments, etc.) for the average wikipedia reader. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's not covered in reliable, third-party sources, how would you establish its notability? – PeeJay 11:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Something being a reliable source and it being notable are two very distinct things. It's not uncommon at all to be reliable but unnotable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

From what I have witnessed, WorldFootball.net is not inherently an unreliable source. However, it may contain erroneous information at times and it must be evaluated with care. Never use to it to establish notability of a subject. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether WorldFootball.net is reliable, we're talking about whether the site itself is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it isn't. – PeeJay 10:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Crystal Palace players stats

Unfortunately due to the sad passing of Eagleash, the Palace players stats which he so diligently kept updated, are being left. Some of us have taken over some of the other bits he did, I myself have started to keep the managers stats records up to date. But that is the easy bits!! The players stats are very time consuming. Some editors have since been trying to update individual players of their choice, but in some cases are updating the main front appearances, but not the career stats!! Or vice versa!! So it has become a mess!! But still a lot of players have not been updated anyway since the first game of the season. Just wanted to flag it up to see if anyone can take over the mantel? Or speak to one of the main experienced editors to see what can be done as players stats as far as wiki are concerned are important. Many thanks. Remi Morris (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

National team RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to use men's and women's national football team as the title of national team articles. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A number of editors (see this discussion on my talk page) have raised the concern that this discussion did not attract enough participation and should be made at a more public venue or through a more advertised process. I encourage editors to file a new discussion following the format explained in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves and advertise the discussion in WP:VPP and other relevant discussion boards/talk pages. Until such a discussion is closed, consensus in this discussion should not be considered binding. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

---

How should national football team articles be titled?

It has been mentioned a few times now that a wider discussion is needed regarding the naming convention for national football teams with regards to the inclusion of gender (see here, here and here for more info) and I feel this is more appropriate than a massive RM involving 200+ articles. It also allows more easily for flexibility if there are differing consensus across countries. I've tried to keep the question as neutral as I can but I would like to hear opinions on how consistent the use of gender in article titles should be and what editors should consider before moving a page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• ____ men's national football (soccer) team. Let's go whole hog rather than individually deciding on a nation by nation basis. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity: I meant using soccer when appropriate rather than specifying football (soccer) for every page! Felixsv7 (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Depends on the country. For some countries, the men's and women's teams get equal coverage, but for most of the world, they do not. As such, for most countries in the world, the men's team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but there will be some exceptions (which can and should be discussed individually, similar to whether football or soccer is used in article titles). Wikipedia is here to follow sources, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that most sources for most countries use male as norm. If most mainstream media stops using male as norm principles, then and only then should we mass change articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use "____ men's national football team", with rare exceptions. I don't see the point in adding "(soccer)" except in cases like the US, Canada, and Australia where "football" often means something else (namely American gridiron, Canadian gridiron, or Australian-rules football). I'm not swayed by the PRIMARYTOPIC argument, other than for PRIMARYREDIRECT purposes. I.e., in many if not most cases, "____ national football team" should redirect to "____ men's national football team", but in a few cases maybe should be a short DISAMBIG page, in cases where the women's team is about co-notable with the men's.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use men's national football team (but following LANGVAR ie for USA, Canada, etc, where it would be men's soccer team). Just easier and prevents incorrect links from women's pages as it would get linked to a DAB and then a notification to fix it. RedPatch (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• According to PRIMARYTOPIC. If the men's team (or women's team) is clearly the primary topic, treat it as such. If neither one is and both are of roughly equal notability, make a disambiguation page for the two at the primary title. Add "soccer" only where the term "football" might be confusing to the reader, such as US, Canada, maybe Australia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  And just for clarity: Use "men's" in the name only if that is what is most commonly done in sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Depends on the country and we should reflect what sources say and follow WP:COMMONNAME. If the common name adds "men's", such as it does for the United States for example, then it should be added. Otherwise it varies on a case by case basis. Yes it is an example of male as norm, but that's up to the sources to change, not Wikipedia. Jay eyem (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Depends on the country per PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use "____ men's national football team" per WP:NATDIS. --Frenchl (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd say use men's national football team for the mens' team's name, similary to how it would be used for the gendered national Olympic teams in swimming, track and field, gynmastics, etc. Listen1st (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Depends on the country, for the vast majority of countries the men's team is PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use "men's." Clarity is always best. natemup (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Use ___ biological men's national football team. This may not be that important for men's team, but definitely important for biological women's team. Famous player Quinn is out, transgender, non-binary, does not use the pronoun she/her, and yet somehow still plays for Canada biological women's national team. Therefore the term biological cannot be omitted here. Sofeshue (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• That isn't the WP:COMMONNAME of the teams, and doesn't match any sources. Sources refer to teams as women's football/soccer teams, not biological women's football/soccer teams, regardless of the fact that some teams have non-binary players. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I realise I haven't put forward my view but grateful to all for your contributions. My view is to use men's and women's purely because it is the simplest form of disambiguation. I would particularly favour this where the WP:COMMONNAME for both men's and women's teams includes men's or women's as well as cases where the COMMONNAME for both is just County Name - for example Scotland. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Use men's / women's national football team. In accordance with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, this clearly distinguishes it from other subjects. I would also argue that with the gender included, the team's name is still commonly recognisable so is in accordance with Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. I don't see why the same standard shouldn't be applied to each country rather than trying to decide on a nation-by-nation basis which team is the "primary" team. Timceharris (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move at Talk:Afghanistan national football team#Requested move 23 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afghanistan national football team#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 10:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the above RFC on national teams

Do these naming conventions now also apply to futsal, beach soccer and regional soccer teams (e.g Hawaii soccer team)?

P.S: given that the top soccer league in Papua New Guinea is called the National Soccer League, plus PNG English is very Australianised due to it being Australia's closest neighbour, relying on Australia for many things and even being an Australian territory until 1975, plus they have rugby and Australian rules football over there which are quite competitive (outside Australia, PNG has the best national Aussie rules team in the world, plus they are very passionate about and successful in rugby league, their national sport), shouldn't we rename "Football in Papua New Guinea", "Papua New Guinea national football team" and "Papua New Guinea women's national football team" to replace "football" with "soccer" (like in the US, South Africa, Canada, Australia and Nauru)? QLDer in NSW (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Before moving any further, the closure is being disputed with the closer. The close just isn't an accurate reflection of the discussion. Tvx1 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I respect that the close is being challenged. What I would say meantime is that my intention was solely to discuss association football articles so that wouldn't include futsal or beach soccer but would include representative teams such as the Hawaii team you mention.

As for Papua New Guinea, the men's article was moved in December 2022 (at the same time as the Fiji article) to soccer instead of football. I reverted the Fiji move as the online sources I found suggested football was more common than soccer but I didn't revert the PNG move as I was unsure. It was reverted in January 2023 though so an RM is probably needed to decide which is the better title for the articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An RM could potentially be the way to go. However I think that "soccer" should be used for the PNG articles because the league is called the PNGNSL (Papua New Guinea National Soccer League). As for New Zealand, Fiji and other Pacific Island countries; although the general public uses the term "soccer" more commonly, the leagues and official bodies use "football" and even though they have Australian rules football in New Zealand, Fiji, etc, it is a minor sport especially outside Australia, PNG, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga and Nauru, and rugby is often just called "rugby" there, so there is more ease to use the term "football" there because of less conflicting terminology.

As for the discussion, it looks pretty closed to me. Should I move any more articles? QLDer in NSW (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@QLDer in NSW: No, as it is now discussed here. Kante4 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Spain national football team / Spain men's national football team

This page was moved due to the RfC above; however the original page has been turned into a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. Whilst this eventually will be a good idea, at the moment there are over 6,500 broken links. I vaguely remember there used to be a bot task to fix issues like this when a page with heavy incoming links is renamed; can anyone else shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of them are through Template:fb so you'll need to make a request at Template:Country data Spain if it hasn't already been updated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think those are OK because of [3] (which was actioned just after I posted). There are still 6,001 incoming links though. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Santiago Giménez

On Santiago Giménez, been going on for a few months now, a constantly changing IP/user account, keeps adding nationality, hyphenated nationality to both the player and the father in the personal life section, against the convention for players who have played for multiple nationalities (father) or non-birth nation (player). They also deleted a hidden message in the code explaining the convention. Just looking for some extra eyes to help maintain it. RedPatch (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wanderson (footballer, born February 1994)

The article Wanderson (footballer, born February 1994) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mach61 (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Jack Eggett

In Goodwin's The Spurs Alphabet, he is called John Eggett, no mention on the name Jack in either of my Tottenham books. So I was wondering if the page should be moved to correct that or not. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The edition of The Spurs Alphabet on Google Books refers to him as Jack (in the first sentence of the prose), must be a different edition from yours. There's a historical piece on the Spurs website that calls him Jack, as does this feature on the Doncaster Rovers' website and this lengthy profile in the Doncaster local paper. So it looks like the page is at the right place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Although it is now one of the most common UK boys' names in its own right, Jack was originally a diminutive of John, so it's entirely possible his birth name was John but that he was known as Jack -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It was actually quite common for people at that time to be known by diminutives so it’s probably the same guy. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki links

Hello, Special:Contributions/2A02:587:EE48:C434:7DEC:68E7:C03:F7EF has added links which points to the Turkey page (Süper Lig Team of the Season). Do we accept those links? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Not like that but there is guidance on interlanguage links available at H:FOREIGNLINK. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, lots of the links they're adding don't actually work, for example tr:Football Plus Magazine Football Oscars of the Year used in [4] isn't the correct link to Turkish wiki. H:FOREIGNLINK is the best way to do these links, using {{Interlanguage link}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Good spot, they're aren't all that useful for readers to navigate properly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Berrys ?

I have a player in Goodwin's The Spurs Alphabet having first played for a club called Berrys, he was a Manchester boy, would that possibly be Bury F.C.? Or a different club altogether, turn of the century, 1900. Govvy (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would imagine it's this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, so it was a short lived Lancs club it seems, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Mexborough

The article lists four football teams, but doesn't list Mexborough F.C., am I missing something? Does that mean that Mexborough should list five football teams? Not to mention the section needs sourcing... Govvy (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also Mexborough Athletic F.C.. Go ahead and add them. --SuperJew (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

bolton third kit

https://twitter.com/OfficialBWFC/status/1707349440573452370 hello, bolton now have a third kit for the current season so if the kit guy could add this to the current 23-24 page thatd be good Muur (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Professional Development League

Why do players who play in or have played in the English reserve league not have there games and goals included in official statistics (appart from the EFL Trophy), but reserves player who play in Germany, Spain, and Portugal, etc... do? Mn1548 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the English reserve leagues and the teams accordingly aren't part of the football pyramid. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As well as that, Soccerbase does not cover matches outside the same football pyramid, hence the dashes you see in the club statistics tables. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think both of those cover it. I cannot speak for some of the other countries, but for Germany I don't think I have ever seen A-Junioren or B-Junioren in any stat boxes or infoboxes, as opposed to a FC Bayern Munich II or Borussia Dortmund II playing in the 3. Liga. Just differences in teams and league systems. Jay eyem (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the replys, I've just never liked how Premier League and Championship reserve teams only appear in statistic boxes for the EFL Trophy, and though the inclusion of the other reserve competitions could neaten the table a bit, but if these reserve competition don't count towards official statistics as they are not in the football pyramid, then they are rightly not include. Mn1548 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Broadmeadows Valley Park and John Ilhan Memorial Reserve

Technically, the Park and the Reserve are the same thing, for some bizarre reason the reserve article is purporting to be just for the stadium, when it is far more than that. So I am not sure what way round it should be, because Broadmeadows Valley Park and the reserve are the same area! Somewhat confusing to me, should they not be merged together, the stadium itself is not a reserve, it just sits in that area. [5], so I am totally confused how one would deal with this whole issue, this is not a simple thing, and in fact this is happening with multiple pages, there are park and reserve articles for this part of Australia with similar issues. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Broadmeadows Valley Park article says that it includes the John Ilhan Memorial Reserve. That seems accurate to me. The John Ilhan Memorial Reserve could more accurately be described as a soccer complex, rather than a (single) soccer ground. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You wrote The Broadmeadows Valley Park article says that it includes the John Ilhan Memorial Reserve. However there are no citations on the article, and in geography, parks often reside inside reserves, and it can be reverse to say the old reserve sits inside said park. We have a name here for an open space reserve. However it's unclear which way round we want these articles, as per the source which is Hume City Council which I posted above clearly states John Ilhan Memorial Reserve, also known as Broadmeadows Valley Park is a large recreational area with four soccer pitches including ABD Stadium and home to the Hume City Football Club who are part of the Football Victoria’s State League. It's possible to have a stadium article, but I don't see a point for that, the issue here is and with the data we have, what article needs to be produce and what redirects to setup. Govvy (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In Australia, we often use the terms Park and Reserve interchangeably. Here's a Reserve that's so small that it only consists of a velodrome, a children's playground and a small outdoors gym, called TW Reserve. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a boxscore as a reference

I've seen many articles, where people provide the source with a "match boxscore" as the source for something (ie. a first goal, a first appearance, etc). These seem like inappropriate references to me as they simply show that the player appeared/scored in the match, but no where does it mention the actual claim that is being referred to (ie. its' WP:OriginalResearch and not WP:Verifiability) It's simply a match log. I got reverted on Mihail Gherasimencov where I removed the citation (but left the info) because the "match log backs up the claim" RedPatch (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The match log does indeed back up the claim, although not that much, but it is the best reference I can find as there is only boxscores availible. I have looked for a source that is not a boxscore that states he made professional debut in this match, and so far, haven't been able to find anything. The boxscore was sourced not for his first professional goal/appearance but for more info regarding the match. Thanks. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the FL players articles

Since we had a precedent of deletion FL player article here (for your information players soccerway page - https://int.soccerway.com/players/zachary-kotwica/305429/), i would like to know, what should we do with the other ones and an upcoming ones, because as I knew for a long time player articles were created immediately after first appearance in a match in fully professional league.

As the reason for deletion were references have been considered and found insufficient (you may find references in deletion page discussion), I looked through entire typical FL club squad and havent found a single player who meets such criteria. Should all of there 30+ articles be speedy deleted? I am confused, what type of reference may be accepted as non- routine, trivial and non-independent.

Finally, I would like to ask @GiantSnowman: one more time, as i havent received an answer earlier - if you support article deletion, why are you keep creating such articles as Lewis Shipley, Brad Hills, as they clearly lack notability? I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss such problems though, but i would like draw a line in this thread, what we accept as notable and what is not. And as the number of articles in question is very large the criteria should be simple in my view. Martinklavier (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Shipley and Hills are sourced on a Soccerway profile and "routine transfer reports". I would love to hear the reasoning too GiantSnowman as you wrote in the AfD no evidence of notability. Only sources I can find are routine transfer pieces, surprising given he had a decent career in League Two. --SuperJew (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Kotwica scored two goals in 35 League Two appearances. Non-notable, what the fuck? Maybe bring this up at the village pump or something, something has gone wrong if articles like that are being deleted.--EchetusXe 10:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Three dozen appearances in a fourth tier is not a lot, is it? I've seen articles about players with record international appearances for their country getting deleted; that's something I'm more concerned about. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You wouldnt find another player with a dozen appearances in a fourth tier without an article, that is bothering precedent leading to long list of AfDs. Martinklavier (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have not been following/participating in any AFDs over the past few years then. There is no such thing as automatic notability. GiantSnowman 11:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, so what? I'm expressing anxiety and raising questions but you keep ignoring it. There is clearly problem of inconsistency, one day you push for deletion and the other you create even poorer articles. Such activity may demotivate other authors. With respect, do you personally think that your current FL player articles are notable, what would you say in AfD?Martinklavier (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you on about ignoring it? I've answered queries here. And yes, I think the articles I create are about notable people. You do realise that an article being a stub doesn't mean it's non-notable, right? GiantSnowman 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply and yes, I know what stub is. I've asked about an example of reference that proves notability in your eyes also. Other thing that confuses me is historical players. For example Ray Gill is Chester City appearance record holder, but an article offers only one source and everything I'm able to find is one more non-independent source. How may I check notability in this case? I guess situation with Kotwica is somehow similar - he played on professional level 10 years ago, no wonder references are hard to find this days. Again, you are able to ping dozens of players from every EFL club squad using club season articles, are they all to be deleted too (or to checked using AfD)? Thats why i rely on consensuses in such questions, which is weak position in your eyes... But firstly, it allows us to keep wikipedia consistent in terms of current/historical players and secondly encourages authors to create articles about players who "above the line" of consensus without fear of AfD. It worked perfectly, for many years ALL current and historical EFL players had an articles before Kotwicas decision. Maybe we should consolidate consensus somehow instead of starting a mess? Martinklavier (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

With pre-internet players, there is some leeway (assumption that offline sources exist). GiantSnowman 18:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Am I understood right that you talking about some kind of consensus achieved here? How far this assumption lays? FL players only or non-league too? There must be some cut-off line. Also, internet emerged gradually, not in a one day. I guess in 90s internet already existed but it is hard to find anything about non-star level players. Martinklavier (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no cut-off line anymore. A player is notable if they received significant coverage only - level of play is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 19:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

But you just told me that notability defines by assumption. How does it works? Martinklavier (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you actually took part in AFDs, you would know. GiantSnowman 20:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

May you share some links for important AfD discussions please.. if it is not a sacred knowledge only for those who spend a lot of time each day there? Martinklavier (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

His user page says he is away until tomorrow. Seasider53 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. There is a problem of inconsistency here, particularly since GiantSnowman has been a pusher for deletion at AfD’s on the basis of lack of notability. I am very surprised at this and I annoyed I didn’t notice the discussion on Kotwica as I would have most definitely disagreed. Might be an idea to request un deletion as there is some clear double standardising here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think current FL players are non-notable, then feel free to AFD. The issue with Kotwica is there was no coverage and his career was over. Also please don't get pissy if you don't participate in AFDs when I and other users spend a lot of time each day locating them and adding them to WP:FOOTYDEL. GiantSnowman 07:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Greece vs Albania, Euro 1964 qualifying

Greece refused to play that tie of the preliminary round of the Euro 1964 qualifying, so Albania advanced by walkover.

No source had ever mentioned any awarded scorelines, but, for years now, one or more Albanian editors have been persistently listing 3–0 wins for the team in each leg, and 6–0 on aggregate, in the pages on the particular tournament as well as in historical rankings such as UEFA European Championship qualifying.

But now, the current version of the UEFA page on the return leg does in fact contain the statement "Agg: 6-0 Albania win", although neither that page nor the one on the first leg states a scoreline for the respective individual match.

Now this might be in favour of finally taking that 6–0 into account, but I still find it hard to believe. It looks as if someone has tried to 'complete' the picture from a modern perspective, especially as the default awarded scoreline at the time was actually 2–0 (cf. Chile vs USSR, 1973).

What do you think we should do? --Theurgist (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

go with uefa official statement of 6-0Muur (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Back in the day, walkovers were walkovers with no score attached. For issues like this, I'd look at what independent sources say. RSSSF has it as "Greece withdrew" and no score attached so I'd go with that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The "walkover = 3-0" thing is relatively recent, and the fact that UEFA.com shows it is probably due to the way their database works. – PeeJay 20:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. "Verifiability, not truth" is not an absolute rule. --Theurgist (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Morning chuckle

[6] - apologies to everyone for all the mind control I am apparently practising on you...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

haha that's fantastic :) yeah some mind control, I'm becoming a Gilingham supporter tomorrow ;) --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Negreira case

Hello to everyone! Just wanted to drop this here to ask for any potential editors interested in helping write about the recent scandal involving FC Barcelona. I just made the article relating to the scandal. It's called the Negreira case. Needs some work but it's a good start for now. The case has received mountains of press coverage and it's hard dissecting it all by myself. Help appreciated. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nemanja Vidić Sources and Legacy in Lead - Re-posting after being archived with no responses

Hello, everyone,

I am re-posting this discussion after it was archived before any responses were made:

There is an ongoing edit war I am attempting to end between Spirit Fox99 and myself, which is currently taking place on Nemanja Vidić's Wikipedia article.

Currently, as of the last edit that they rolled back to, the article states the following in the lead, concerning his legacy, that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the sport."

According to Wikipedia guidelines, these sources (from websites such as SportBible.com, TheFootballLovers.com, and TheTopTens.com, would not be deemed reliable or reputable journalistic sources; moreover, some of them are secondary sources citing other more reliable ones, for which I have so far been able to find primary sources, however. I have therefore tried to find more reliable sources that corroborate this statement (something with which I agree, I might add), and implored said user to do so as well, but have so far been unsuccessful unfortunately. I have found more reliable sources that instead described Vidić as being one of the best defenders of his generation and in the history of the Premier League, so I modified the content in the lead to include the following statement and sources, namely that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the Premier League, as well as one of the best defenders of his generation."

However, my edits have been repeatedly reverted, even when I, and other users, such as PeeJay, have reverted these back explaining why the original sources were flawed. The other user disagrees, however, and believes that they are in fact acceptable sources, as they cite more reliable sources in the articles. I would like to bring an end to this once and for all, and resolve it and come to a consesus over whether these sources are indeed relibale or not, so as to avoid similar conflicts and issues in the future, so I please ask for your input on this. Thank you,

Messirulez Messirulez (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to say that I respect the above wikipedia user for their agreeablilty with the statement in question. They too have an understanding of the difficulty finding sources to support it. I believe this may be due to the article subject being a defender. Sadly, such sources relating to forwards and midfielders are abundant, however defenders once again get left in the dark. This is especially true when trying to find a reputable source. I do however strongly believe that SPORTbible is a good, verifiable, and reputable source to use in this instance. They are used as a source of information source by millions of people. To provide more context, they are followed by 2 million users on X (formerly known as twitter), 7 million people on Instagram, and 13 million people on facebook. They are followed by this many people across these platforms partly because they are indeed a trusted source. In the new age of technology, many archaic sources of information (although labelled as reputable through their long tenures on top of the news world) are being replaced by sources such as SPORTbible, which is predominantly online. In this case, with an unrefuted statement in question, I believe this source is more than valid as a support.

TheTopTens is another source which was provided. This is a site which is followed by many football fans. The source in question took a poll with over 11,000 votes.

Some of the other sources reference another poll conducted by the very reputable skysports which had over 20,000 votes.

I would like to reiterate that articles on the GOAT football defenders are almost non-existant. Another thing to note is that if he was even just a top 5 greatest defender in Premier league history (which he undoubtedly is with his accolades) he would by default be one of the greatest in the sport of all time. Consider the fact that the Premier League has been the pinnacle of football (soccer) for many decades. He is one of the only defenders to win the Player of the year award, and the only one to ever do so twice. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In 2020 Donald Trump got more votes than any previous President in history therefore he is reputable, trustworthy, and the greatest President of all time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

???? We're talking football here, not politics (politics are practically a popularity contest), where accolades are a way to measure success. And in this case, it means much more than some opinion piece list from a lone journalist, which are the most likely to be found for these types of lists. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about football, why are you making any reference whatsoever to Twitter followers and Facebook likes? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your snide remarks. I suggest making some valid points. You're all over the place. Please excuse yourself from this conversation. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Explain to the folks what a reliable source is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not speak to me. For one, you didn't even fully read my statement if you somehow mentioned 'facebook likes'. Secondly, you started right off the bat speaking to me in a condescending tone. I looked through your history and see you have been blocked from this site on multiple occasions. From this conversation alone, I can see why. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"To provide more context, they are followed by 2 million users on X (formerly known as twitter), 7 million people on Instagram, and 13 million people on facebook". That's you, that is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

He is considered one of the best defenders in PL history, not sure what's the issue with leaving it in the intro.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the thread. The evidence supports him being considered one of the best in PL history, but not necessarily one of the best in the history of the sport. Some would argue that if you're one of the best in the PL, you're automatically one of the best in history, but the evidence doesn't specifically say that. – PeeJay 07:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Messirulez (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Negreira case

Hello to everyone! Just wanted to drop this here to ask for any potential editors interested in helping write about the recent scandal involving FC Barcelona. I just made the article relating to the scandal. It's called the Negreira case. Needs some work but it's a good start for now. The case has received mountains of press coverage and it's hard dissecting it all by myself. Help appreciated. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nemanja Vidić Sources and Legacy in Lead - Re-posting after being archived with no responses

Hello, everyone,

I am re-posting this discussion after it was archived before any responses were made:

There is an ongoing edit war I am attempting to end between Spirit Fox99 and myself, which is currently taking place on Nemanja Vidić's Wikipedia article.

Currently, as of the last edit that they rolled back to, the article states the following in the lead, concerning his legacy, that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the sport."

According to Wikipedia guidelines, these sources (from websites such as SportBible.com, TheFootballLovers.com, and TheTopTens.com, would not be deemed reliable or reputable journalistic sources; moreover, some of them are secondary sources citing other more reliable ones, for which I have so far been able to find primary sources, however. I have therefore tried to find more reliable sources that corroborate this statement (something with which I agree, I might add), and implored said user to do so as well, but have so far been unsuccessful unfortunately. I have found more reliable sources that instead described Vidić as being one of the best defenders of his generation and in the history of the Premier League, so I modified the content in the lead to include the following statement and sources, namely that he:

"is considered as one of the greatest defenders in the history of the Premier League, as well as one of the best defenders of his generation."

However, my edits have been repeatedly reverted, even when I, and other users, such as PeeJay, have reverted these back explaining why the original sources were flawed. The other user disagrees, however, and believes that they are in fact acceptable sources, as they cite more reliable sources in the articles. I would like to bring an end to this once and for all, and resolve it and come to a consesus over whether these sources are indeed relibale or not, so as to avoid similar conflicts and issues in the future, so I please ask for your input on this. Thank you,

Messirulez Messirulez (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to say that I respect the above wikipedia user for their agreeablilty with the statement in question. They too have an understanding of the difficulty finding sources to support it. I believe this may be due to the article subject being a defender. Sadly, such sources relating to forwards and midfielders are abundant, however defenders once again get left in the dark. This is especially true when trying to find a reputable source. I do however strongly believe that SPORTbible is a good, verifiable, and reputable source to use in this instance. They are used as a source of information source by millions of people. To provide more context, they are followed by 2 million users on X (formerly known as twitter), 7 million people on Instagram, and 13 million people on facebook. They are followed by this many people across these platforms partly because they are indeed a trusted source. In the new age of technology, many archaic sources of information (although labelled as reputable through their long tenures on top of the news world) are being replaced by sources such as SPORTbible, which is predominantly online. In this case, with an unrefuted statement in question, I believe this source is more than valid as a support.

TheTopTens is another source which was provided. This is a site which is followed by many football fans. The source in question took a poll with over 11,000 votes.

Some of the other sources reference another poll conducted by the very reputable skysports which had over 20,000 votes.

I would like to reiterate that articles on the GOAT football defenders are almost non-existant. Another thing to note is that if he was even just a top 5 greatest defender in Premier league history (which he undoubtedly is with his accolades) he would by default be one of the greatest in the sport of all time. Consider the fact that the Premier League has been the pinnacle of football (soccer) for many decades. He is one of the only defenders to win the Player of the year award, and the only one to ever do so twice. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In 2020 Donald Trump got more votes than any previous President in history therefore he is reputable, trustworthy, and the greatest President of all time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

???? We're talking football here, not politics (politics are practically a popularity contest), where accolades are a way to measure success. And in this case, it means much more than some opinion piece list from a lone journalist, which are the most likely to be found for these types of lists. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about football, why are you making any reference whatsoever to Twitter followers and Facebook likes? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your snide remarks. I suggest making some valid points. You're all over the place. Please excuse yourself from this conversation. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Explain to the folks what a reliable source is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not speak to me. For one, you didn't even fully read my statement if you somehow mentioned 'facebook likes'. Secondly, you started right off the bat speaking to me in a condescending tone. I looked through your history and see you have been blocked from this site on multiple occasions. From this conversation alone, I can see why. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"To provide more context, they are followed by 2 million users on X (formerly known as twitter), 7 million people on Instagram, and 13 million people on facebook". That's you, that is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

He is considered one of the best defenders in PL history, not sure what's the issue with leaving it in the intro.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the thread. The evidence supports him being considered one of the best in PL history, but not necessarily one of the best in the history of the sport. Some would argue that if you're one of the best in the PL, you're automatically one of the best in history, but the evidence doesn't specifically say that. – PeeJay 07:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Messirulez (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

International statistics

Appearances and goals by year

Year	Apps	Goals
2005	1	1
2006	1	0
2007	0	0
2008	0	0
2009	0	0
2010	1	1
2011	0	0
2012	0	0
2013	0	0
2014	0	0
2015	2	0
2016	0	0
2017	0	0
2018	0	0
2019	1	1
2020	0	0
2021	0	0
2022	0	0
2023	2	0
Total	8	3

A player may play a match in 2023 and his next appearance may be after 5 years or 10years for national team, similar to one shown above. Do we have to keep the statistics like above or we exclude the years where there is zero appearance? To me keeping the years where there are appearance is much better than keeping years after years with zero appearance. Please add your thoughts on how to keep the table. Drat8sub (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

For me, remove the ones with no apps. Kante4 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

To me it's a terrible table, I never really like that particular table myself. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drat8sub I would remove the years with zero appearances.

@Govvy I do agree their isn't much value to the table, but what would you replace it with? Demt1298 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for response. Indeed it's quite odd to place 0 appearance. But the concern you both raised about the format of the table, then I think for international match we don't have any other choice, since it's one team for which the player is palyinh unlike club statistics. Drat8sub (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind the table that list international goals, but that one, year by year, seems overkill to me, a case for WP:NOSTATS, and besides, we already list international apps in the infobox, that table doesn't really offer much more from the other two. So I feel it holds no real value to an article. I prefer to see them all removed. Govvy (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drat8sub The template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players shows a similar table and shows the 0 appearnces and 0 goals in that example. Demt1298 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

is that a real player, seems weird he'd score in 2019 then not be called up for 4 years. anyway, with a table that big id remove the 0s so its not massive.Muur (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont think the circumstances of the player - real or fictional - is the issue at all. In 2020, Tim Template was out for only 4 months with a calf strain, but Templatonia played no more international matches that year due to the coronavirus pandemic. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That and the fact that Tim Template has 99 international caps in the infobox and only 60 in the table! Something very wrong there!! Govvy (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Zero is as much a number as one, two, or a million. To not include would imply the player wasn't available for selection. Though the table could be simplified to say:

2018-2022: Apps 0 Goals 0

instead of

2018: Apps 0 Goals 0

2019: Apps 0 Goals 0

2020: Apps 0 Goals 0

2021: Apps 0 Goals 0

2022: Apps 0 Goals 0

As an example. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

We should include 'fallow' years for international players that have an ongoing career (e.g. for a player that played internationally in 2005, 2006, 2007, but not again until 2010, we should sill list '0' for 2008 and 2009). It is not a NOTSTATS violation, it shows a complete picture of that person's career. Having gaps in the stats table is a slippery slope. Would you do the same for a player who had the same history but for a club? (i.e. missed two seasons due to injury, for example)? GiantSnowman 08:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

He would still be contracted to the team but for the national team he would not be called up, for me it's a difference. Kante4 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

For me, I think either way is fine - this discussion reminds me that I got reverted twice for deleting rows without appearances: Michael Carrick and Eric Lichaj back in 2018. I would not waste time making this consistent in every article about footballers playing internationally. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind a merging of rows. For example instead of showing 2015 1/0 then 4 years of 0/0 the 2020 1/0. Why not 2015 1/0, 2016-19 0/0 and 2020 1/0. Still shows there's four years of zeroes, but just one row instead of four RedPatch (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with GS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to use an emdash across the two columns if there are "missing" years in an international career, e.g. Craig Gordon or David Marshall. That makes it clearer that there were years that the player wasn't selected for the national team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmorrison230582 and Kante4: What if a player is called-up but didn't make an appearance (as happens with plenty of reserve and third goalkeepers)? --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The table is of appearances, not squad selections. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but you said That makes it clearer that there were years that the player wasn't selected for the national team. (bolding mine). I was replying off that and Kante4's but for the national team he would not be called up --SuperJew (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Team =/= squad. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

combine years. so youd have 2005 1 appearence, 2006-2009 0, 2010 1 apperence. then you can cover 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 on one line instead of 4 lines.Muur (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say leave the lines with zeroes if the player was called up or benched in those years. If he wasn't, then combine the lines and put dashes instead of zeroes.--BlameRuiner (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

From the discussions, I can conclude that, if career of a player is ongoing and misses an appearance in 1 or 2 years in between we can keep the zeroes as some of you suggest and I too agree, but if the gap is huge and the player is not a regular member of the team, missing 5-6 years in a row, then we can keep the records with emdash as some of you suggest and I agree with that too. Adding with that, we all must agree, this table is for statistics of appearance but not for the player's inclusion in squad or not. Thank you for your valuable suggestions here. Drat8sub (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Everton F.C.

Is a football club a singular or plural in British English? And does it depend on context? I've brought this up on the talk page and I'm looking for more voices and a consensus (a previous discussion by an IP was ignored last year). To avoid accusations of WP:CANVAS I won't say anything here, but I've provided sources to the point of view I hold (and have not edited in) on the page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Football clubs (among other things) take what is called the discretionary plural in British English, whereby the verb changes depending on whether the club is being referred to as a single entity or as a collective of the members it comprises. – PeeJay 11:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. If we are talking about the entity it is singular (i.e. "Foobar City is a football club based in Foobar town"). If it is the team, it is plural "Foobar City are playing Wingdings Town tonight". Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think it's even that clear-cut. See, for example, this BBC article, the first sentence of which is clearly referring to Everton as an entity but uses the plural...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

To make matters worse, they refer to 777 Partners in the singular later in the article. "777 Partners purchased a minority stake in La Liga side Sevilla, and it has since bought Serie A side Genoa". I honestly think that's a mistake though. – PeeJay 12:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Everton are" but "Genoa, Italy's oldest football club, was"... Think that piece just shows that the BBC Sport website isn't a reliable source for consistent use of encyclopedic English, which should be no real surprise. Usage depends on context, as per PeeJay and Black Kite above, and to my (British) ears, "Foobar Football Club are a football club" just sounds wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

In short, it’s very ambiguous. I struggle with this everywhere. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say "if in doubt, use the plural". Currently the Everton article contains the sentence "The following season, Martínez led Everton to the last 16 of the 2014-15 UEFA Europa League, where it was defeated by Dynamo Kyiv", which is a million percent wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it as 100% right, will continue to use the singular whenever there is doubt, but that's me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to do that on Australian articles, or whatever, because you'd be wrong on English ones. – PeeJay 21:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Kit pattern

Can anyone please create the patterns of jersey of the India national football team...

For the infoxbox of the India senior as well as junior teams 1. Home 2. Away similar pattern.

For kit evolution history at the Wikimedia commons 1. Home similar patter to away jersey 2. Away

I've earlier requested on various talk page related to football project including the Template:Football kit/pattern list, but was in vain. Kindly, if anyway who knows hwo to make kit pattern please help. Drat8sub (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

English National Football Archive

Who here has access to it? I was wonder if somebody could check if John Rudge's management stats are accurate? They are sourced to Soccer base at 749 games, whereas many sources cite him as taking charge at 843 games, though none give a breakdown of a win/loss record. EchetusXe 19:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I do. ENFA agrees with the 843 game total. – PeeJay 21:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I wonder what the missing 94 games on Soccerbase were. EchetusXe 21:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Soccerbase only has him in charge from December 1984 rather than the actual date of December 1983. That accounts for around 50 games. The site is also completely missing the first decade or so of what is now the EFL Trophy, which probably accounts for about another 30 games -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Beware of User:Rafalek1754

Rafalek1754 (talk · contribs) seems to be adding fake players or unsourced information to articles. SLBedit (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted and blocked. GiantSnowman 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fb template problem

The national team fb templates are all redirecting to "men's national team" which is leading to red-links on many pages. For example at AFC Asian Cup#Results, Bahrain are showing as red-linked in 2004 and Uzbekistan in 2011 as their pages are not titled "men's national team". Please can someone fix this as I'm not sure how this templates can be edited. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Kante4 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Usage of Template:fb out2 player

This is about the correct usage of Template:fb out2 player. When a player gets released on a free by a team, the Moving to field is left blank. If 3 days (or 6 weeks) later, that player signs for a new team, should the Moving to field get updated or not?

Also, if a player was loaned from a team, and at loan-end he returns to that team and then he's loaned out to a different team, what should the Moving to field link to? LaUr3nTiU (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For the first question, you could just put an efn note. For the second question, players returning from loan are not shown. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There was a slight edit war on 2023–24 ASC Oțelul Galați season with User:Jonathan Archer regarding the released players and I'm not sure how to proceed. I think the moving field should be empty, as those players were not transferred by the club to the other clubs. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@LaUr3nTiU I think you should remove the FB out 2 template and instead use the tables shown on 2023–24 Nottingham Forest F.C. season. They create a middle ground by having a separate table for released players. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 17:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing. Looks like the Notthingham page also lists the new team for Released players in the Out table. For example, Cafú lists as Released on June 2, but signed by Rotherham on July 8. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Is FIFA World Cup an exclusive men's tournament?

Is there any official document, rule book, etc of FIFA World Cup that explicitly stipulates that the players must be male? Or is it theoretically possible to include female players in the squad? World Snooker Tour is open to all able competitors, regardless of gender, and the female player Reanne Evans did once competed in it. Yet there are still a lot of snooker tournaments specifically for women. The same can be said about chess, xiangqi, Go tournaments, etc.

My gut feeling is that World Cup, instead of Men's World Cup, means that it is open to any football player, regardless of gender. If this is indeed the case, it should not be classified as a men's tournament, as is currently stated in FIFA page. Sofeshue (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, the sport is explicitly separated by sex. Unlike other sports, women are not permitted to compete in the men's competitions. I found this with a quick Google search that mentions it pretty early on. Jay eyem (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sofeshue (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Men's national football team

After the discussion to move "[Country] national football team" to "[Country] men's national football team" was closed (consensus: not move), I noticed that some users, not me, inserted the word men's in the lede of some national teams, e.g., Japan, Bugaria, Russia, Serbia, to name a few. Now the lede become "The Japan men's national football team, nicknamed the Samurai Blue..." I think this is an excellent practice, for 1. no need to move the page title, which creates lots of red links and troubles; 2. makes it clear that this is men's team, 3. gender equality is achieved, which was why the discussion was initiated in the first place.

I propose that we add "men's" to all national football teams in the lede, including U-23, U-19, U-17 teams etc, not just the ones I mentioned. Currently there are still a lot of national team pages without men's in the lede. Sofeshue (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I mean... MOS:BOLDTITLE states "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". I think the previous discussion closing as a no consensus would indicate that there is not a consensus to make this change at this time, and that all of those examples could probably be reverted until the discussion comes up again. I don't see how this wouldn't also be accompanied by additional requests to move the page title, and I think there would be some dispute that this achieves gender equality. For the time being, I personally am inclined to remove it from the lead for now. Jay eyem (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jay, the bold text should match the article title. Sounds like people who dislike the fact the RM didn't happen trying to de facto impose this anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel this slightly misses the point of the RM. It's not about equality because that implies WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it was to see if the articles are correctly titled according to Wikipedia policy. Things have changed in the real world since these articles were created and I have no doubt that, at the time, they had the correct titles (they wouldn't have been stable at those titles for goodness knows how long otherwise). That doesn't mean they are now and there is a legitimate debate to be had about that. It's difficult to take anything from the original mass RM other than the fact that there are strong feelings on both sides because of the amount of articles involved. Maybe some do need to move but, given the tone of that discussion at times, it might be better to wait before revisiting so I agree with Jay eyem and Joesph2302. Stick to policy- if it's not in the title, don't include it in the lead. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Judaism in association football

I have created a long overdue article, Judaism in association football - any help expanding it is much welcome. GiantSnowman 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What does Judaism or any other religion have to do with football? Jews are involved in the game, sure, but I don't really see the encyclopaedic relevance. – PeeJay 10:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree with PeeJay. Kante4 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

While it's true that the article mentioned above is very thin on content right now, religion has clearly been hugely important in the history of football. There's an entire full-length book (I own a copy) on the influence of Christian pioneers in the foundation and development of many of England's leading teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I retract the statement that religion as a whole has nothing to do with football, but that doesn't answer the question of what Judaism has to do with it. – PeeJay 11:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Also more examples include clubs being founded on different aspects of religion - like Rangers' unofficial policy not to sign Catholics, or Beitar's unofficial policy not to sign Arabs. Also plenty of clubs founded as Jewish clubs (hint: many of them are named "Maccabi" or "HaKoah"). Oh there's also a Jewish Olympics. --SuperJew (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do many such clubs exist outside Israel? – PeeJay 15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, plenty - you are clearly and embarrassingly ignorant of American European football history. See Category:Jewish football clubs. GiantSnowman 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Embarrassingly? Lol – PeeJay 21:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I am not sure many Americans know much about historic teams like Maccabee Los Angeles, let alone folks outside the US. Still tied for most domestic cups and they haven't won it since 1981. Jay eyem (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to what ChrisTheDude wrote, I see religion frequently mentioned in coverage of football. For example, players fasting (or not) in Ramadan comes up regularly. See Christianity and association football and Islam in association football. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but what about Judaism? – PeeJay 11:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The articles GS found and used in the article all look like SIGCOV to me. They're all pretty recent and I'm sure there's lots more out there. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources used are specifically Jewish publications. I don't see much in the way of independent coverage. – PeeJay 15:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That is totally not what independent sourcing means. Frankly, before you continue I'd just bow out of this gracefully if I were you. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said. BigDom (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

One could say the article is long overJew *cough*, yeah err anyway. Gusztáv Sebes and Béla Guttmann were Jews, Guttmann survived Nazi labour camps during the Holocaust to help set up the Magical Magyars and then travelled to South America and was highly influential in evolving football there. So yeah, put that stuff in. I'm guessing @SuperJew: would be helpful in improving the article.--EchetusXe 12:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the tag. I saw this. Also saw that List of Jewish footballers needs work. I'm quite busy rn irl with work, studies, baby, and trying to stay safe in the middle of a war. When things are calmer I'll try to have a more serious look at this. --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I'm more than happy to help with the expansion, though I think maybe it should have been left in the userspace in its current state before mainspacing, but I will try to do my best to add a bit more for it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  It clearly passes GNG, even in my very quick stub, and I always find collaboration better in mainspace than userspace. GiantSnowman 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Another useful source for this article would be Anthony Clavane's Does Your Rabbi Know You're Here?: The Story of English Football's Forgotten Tribe, which is a history of Jewish footballers and football club owners in England. Number 57 11:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Don't know if you have access to the Wikipedia Library but there are loads of articles and academic papers about this topic. Some are longer pieces about Jews and sport in general but have several paragraphs about football. Just from the first page of results for "judaism" and "soccer":

• Sports and boycott: Attitudes among Jewish Israelis International Review for the Sociology of Sport 2022, Vol. 57(8) 1197–1213. DOI: 10.1177/10126902211066429
• Social Justice, Sport and Judaism: A Position Statement Quest 2019, VOL. 71, NO. 2, 138–149 DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2018.1547650
• ‘My Attitude to Sport Is Very Simple – It’s Something That Jews Just Don’t Do’: The Lost (?) World of Sport in Jewish Manchester European Judaism • Volume 55, No. 2, Autumn 2022: 42–63 doi: 10.3167/ej.2022.550205
• Jewish players and storylines to watch in 2022 World Cup Washington Jewish Week 12/1/2022, Vol. 58 Issue 48, p16-25. 2p.
• Symptoms at Play: Soccer, Austria and the Jewish Question Journal of Sport & Social Issues Volume 24, Issue 3, August 2000, pp. 251-259. doi: 10.1177/0193723500243003
• Makkabi, Jutrzenka, Wisla and Cracovia. Polish-Jewish Krakow from the Perspective of Football Aschkenas, vol. 27, no. 1, 2017, pp. 93-108. doi:10.1515/asch-2017-0007
• Anything but ringers: early American soccer hotbeds and the 1930 US World Cup team Soccer & Society, 19:7, 986-1006, DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2016.1267636
• Towards understanding: antisemitism and the contested uses and meanings of ‘Yid’ in English football Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2016 vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1981–2001. doi: 0.1080/01419870.2016.1140791

Just a few for starters there, hope this helps. BigDom (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! No I don't have access, so would you mind adding to the article please? GiantSnowman 18:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they opened it up so more people can access it. Have a look here. The links above may not all work by just clicking but you can copy the titles into the library search and they should come up. If I get time I'll try and add to the article myself, but can't promise anything sorry. BigDom (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:SPFL-stadiums

Hi, the SPFL website used as the only source for the stadium capacities in the template above doesn't appear to actually list the capacities any more. Crowsus (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked the first four and saw the capcities on the right side listed. Kante4 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Arrg, sorry. I was looking on a mobile which doesn't display that box - instead I was looking at the 'Further Information' box at the bottom and it wasn't beside the stadium address, so I assumed that was where it had been but had been removed. Should have tried Desktop display, have now tried it on a PC and there it is. Thanks for checking. Crowsus (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is a template being used for this? Each team's ground attendance is being used around twice- which doesn't justify the need for this template. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Player position categories

Good afternoon,

i started a discussion regarding this years ago but, should the thread exist still, i'll be damned if i can find it, so here it goes (again):

In my point of view, the categories should be goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders (also wingers, as it is a sort of "bridge category" between midfielders and forwards) and forwards. But one thing is my preferences and another completely different the wiki-reality of things, of course!

From what i've been seeing, only defenders are often detailed (fullbacks or central defenders), but i have never, in 17 years of editing, seen sub-categories for midfielders (AM, CM or DM) or forwards (strikers, second strikers, centre-forwards, false 9, etc). Can someone please enligthen me as to where we currently stand? I profit from the chance to apologise to anyone whom i (probably, depending on the outcome to my question) unduly reverted.

Attentively, thank you for your attention RevampedEditor (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that separate categories for full backs and central defenders are valid, as those are quite different roles and it is quite normal for a player to only ever play as one or the other. The sub-categorisation of midfielders and forwards is nowhere near as clear cut. I doubt there are many players whose primary/defining position could be said to be something as specific as a "false 9". Just my opinion..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion, I have wondered about this myself.

In my opinion (and specially in modern football) full-back and centre-back are totally different positions (full-back is almost more of a midfielder than a defender these days - just look at Alexander-Arnold, Cancelo, Kimmich, etc), so I think they should be different categories.

Midfielders are a lot harder to define, and it varies a lot of the tactical system they play in. A DM in a 4-3-3 becomes more of a CM in a 4-4-2. If we created 3 sub-categories for midfielders (DM, CM and AM), almost every player would fit in 2 (or in some cases, even 3) of them.

For forwards, I stand by what ChrisTheDude said. It's a lot harder to define their positions, depends on the game, tactic, manager, etc.

My question is, if a player is a full-back, should we insert him in both "Men's association football defenders" and "Men's association football full backs" or just the second one? I normally do both but I have been "accused" of over-categorizing before... JoaoSPinto18 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Diego Rangel - Spanish footballer

Hi, Finding conflicting date-of-birth sources. March or June 23, 1978? See Talk for details. Not sure how to find the answer, so asking for help here. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you to all who worked on Diego Rangel disambig page and article moves for the two athletes with similar names & different DOBs. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Native names for international tournaments in infoboxes

Why do we need to add the name of international tournaments in local languages in infoboxes? Just looking at 2030 FIFA World Cup as an example, how does it help the reader to know that the competition is known as "2030ko Munduko Futbol Txapelketa" in Basque or "ⵜⴽⵓⵙⵜ ⵏ ⵓⵎⴰⴹⴰⵍ ⵏ ⵜⴽⵓⵔⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴹⴰⵕ 2030" in Tamazight? – PeeJay 10:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous tournaments have this (but appreciate your question is general to the template not specific to 2030) but the issue here is highlighted by the multiple languages for 2030 I guess which become confusing/unwieldy. Also there are no notes in brackets for confirming the languages used which adds to the confusion ColchesterSid (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would guess MOS:LEADLANG applies. Relevant foreign-language names ... are encouraged. Just depends on what you deem as relevant though. For 2030, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic are definitely relevant. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Having 8 languages listed in the infobox seems like a massive overkill, as it makes the top of the infobox needlessly long. We didn't do this for UEFA Euro 2020 which was held in many countries, and don't think we need to list them all the infobox of FIFA World Cup 2030. If there's one or two hosts, then listing their native names in the lead/infobox is fine, and that's what MOS:LEADLANG is clearly alluding to: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. Note that it suggests a single foreign language, not 8 non-English languages. All 8 of those languages could be redirects so people of those languages can find the article more easily, but 8 languages in the lead/infobox is clutter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think all of that would apply if we were talking about the lead section, but I don't think it applies to the infobox. I also think that, since the World Cup is an international tournament that is hosted by a different nation (or nations) every time, there's no reason to think "the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language". – PeeJay 11:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

LEADLANG does suggest that, if it's cluttered, use a footnote and I don't see why that couldn't apply here. List relevant ones in a footnote rather than in the infobox. Something like: Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd still argue that the alternate names aren't needed at all. They're just literal translations of "2030 FIFA World Cup". If that's the case, they add nothing to the article. If people want to know what the tournament was called in any language, we have interwiki links to other languages' articles on the subject on the left hand side of the page. – PeeJay 20:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For 2030, there's no way of knowing what might be relevant right now but for tournaments like World Cup 1982, España 82 and Copa Mundial are definitely relevant because they were used in the branding for the tournament. I'd have no issue holding off and waiting to see what might be useful though, it's seven years away so a lot (or nothing) could change. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. We can say names in other languages were used in promotional materials, but I'm not sure we need to put these other language in either the lead or the infobox. – PeeJay 12:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Football in Scotland task force members

Category:Football in Scotland task force members has been moved - can somebody with the skills please update Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/userbox to reflect the new name? GiantSnowman 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Phikia (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No Ivory Coast under 21 article?

I was just looking at Souleymane Coulibaly article and noticed there is Ivory Coast Under-17 article and not an Under-21 ? Is that right? I don't know if it would be better to have an article Ivory Coast national youth level football to encompass these teams? Govvy (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a U20 article. Could re-direct it to that. I've seen that done before as some tournaments are U20, some are U21, often it ends up being the same team (ie same coaching staff) depending on the match. (Similar to how a U16 match might be the U17 team playing a match the year before a tournament so they make it U16, so it'll only be players who will be U17 the following year) RedPatch (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the Ivorian Football Federation website, apart from the senior teams, they only have U23, U20 and U17. For U19 tournaments, I assume they either put out a restricted version of the U20 team or they enter the U17s. – PeeJay 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, North/South America and Africa have their top youth level at under-20, it's Europe that has under-21. GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

k, I changed the link on the article to Ivory Coast national under-20 football team however, the under-20 article... Well it has some serious issues, firstly GNG!? A lot needs sorting out on it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Mass changes to league tables of UEFA countries

Can User:Celticfcman be blocked? There is no consensus for those mass changes of league tables across all articles, in fact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season#Standings clearly states that we should use "Qualification for the" / "Relegation to" prefixes, and the user also broke redirects at some of those tables. I've seen AT LEAST 5 other users reverting those edits across all articles, but he just reverts it back without any discussion or edit summary, so this is clearly vandalism. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User is also not respoonding to any messages. It may needs to go to ANI i guess? Kante4 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If they have broken WP:3RR, you could also report for edit warring. Looks like they might have at done so at 2022–23 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User blocked for disruptive edits. GiantSnowman 21:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I have mass-reverted the "(current)" edits by the Celticfcman account on the basic assumption that removing text without explanation definitely fits what Snowflake91 states at the end. Some of you will notice that on watchlists. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin action possibly needed

See here where it appears to be familiar block evasion by pointlessly changing the fullname parameter. I can only assume one person gets into the habit. I promise next time that happens ANI would be the next place to speak about this if it continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I should also provide one edit: [7]. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Have we got previous examples of this happening? A rangeblock would be easiest because otherwise they could simply switch to another IP and carry on. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what is the original account? The editing is ringing bells but not any names... GiantSnowman 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A previous discussion has been discussed here where you'll find three IP addresses. A similar IP address, 154.180.194.31, did the same underscore edit a few months ago[8]. You will have a better idea while I tell you the original account was HazemGM, which was the subject of many previous discussions in the past. Rangeblocking can solve part of the problem. I know I had a bit of time to search past edits so I ended up searching contributions from an established editor who advised the IP not to make any such edits again but that has continued to today and probably beyond. p.s. I was thinking about WP:DENY but I have provided the name per the above question. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

(By the way: 154.180.127.219 also edited today as well, similar IP address from the 154.180.0.0/16 range. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, I can see more editing going on today[9] probably from the same HazemGM IP address range. As @Black Kite says, this person has indeed switched IP addresses. Also, are changes to extend the short description necessary? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest IP and tagged the 3 IPs listed here (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM) to build up a log of the IPs used. I suggest you request a range block at ANI. GiantSnowman 13:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi international stats

Please can somebody have a word with @Bergenoslo: who is editing the international stats table on Domenico Berardi against MOS and accusing me of vandalism for reverting? GiantSnowman 17:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He has now reverted @PeeJay: as well. Perhaps time to take to ANI? GiantSnowman 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Your personal attack is senseless, respond with arguments if you have any, have you seen the international goals tables of other prominent international strikers? Have you noticed that they have the Cap column for each goal? Why you want to remove information from the readers on this player's page? Bergenoslo (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What personal attack? You are the one accusing me, repeatedly, of vandalism - in breach of WP:NOTVAND. GiantSnowman 21:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The user @GiantSnowman has removed the Cap column from the Statistics table of the player's international goals. See the same table of ALL the major international players: there is a column with the Caps for each international goal; so if you removed it from Berardi it is a vandalism as one piece of information is taken away from the reader.

See Mbappé table as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylian_Mbapp%C3%A9

See Morata table as another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Morata Bergenoslo (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to why other articles including this is no justification, see the MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#International for how it should be presented, see WP:3RR for why you should not edit war. GiantSnowman 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman You can't personally attack other users and decide to remove information for readers on a player's page, in this case Domenico Berardi. Have you seen the other international players' tables? Do they have a column for caps per goal? Yes or No? Bergenoslo (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, where are the personal attacks? We abide by WP:NOTSTATS and we abide by the MOS, which means we do not display caps. Plenty of international players don't have such a column, see e.g. Francesco Totti#International (which is a Good Article), List of international goals scored by Gabriel Batistuta, List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi (which is a Featured Article) etc. etc. - respectfully, your position on this is absolutely nonsense. GiantSnowman 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Again, your arguments are poor and FALSE (Messi has the column with the caps as the link indicated below) and your personal attacks are ridiculous now, please stop. Almost all the major players have this indication of Caps in their international goals tables. If you remove it, it is a vandalism to the page.

See MESSI:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_goals_scored_by_Lionel_Messi

See also Griezmann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Griezmann Bergenoslo (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Caps are difficult to verify and shouldn't be present in the tables, per the MOS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, leave the caps out. Kante4 (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: will you listen to everyone? If you revert again, we will report you to ANI and ask for you to be blocked for disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with including the cap # if it can be verified reliably. And for Berardi this can be easily verified from [10]. I get the WP:NOTSTATS argument, but to me that's more for super trivial info. Some would view the cap number as fairly relevant (did their goals come in their later appearances, fairly spread out through appearances, etc). I'm fine with having it (I would just add the FIGC as a source for that section) as long as it's accurately sourced and easily verifiable (For big national teams like Italy, it usually is fairly simple, compared to a smaller nation like Guyana which would be more difficult to track). This is why I feel the MOS doesn't have it, because it's not verifiable for ALL players, but there's nothing wrong with having it when it is IMO. RedPatch (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason we do not include it is because you say - we cannot verify the information (at all or easily, taking into account OR/SYNTH) for majority. It is the same reason why we only include league stats in infoboxes, even though for modern footballers it's easy to find cup stats. It results in widely different articles. GiantSnowman 18:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In my mind, there's nothing wrong with including it if it can be verifiable easily. There's lots of things we omit for players when we can't find it that get included in others where it is verifiable. Heck, even things specifically in the MOS don't get included unless someone cares enough to bother adding/updating it (eg stats tables). I'm neither for including it or against including it. Ultimately, my view is, is it really worth getting into a back and forth edit war for what is ultimately something trivial and a case of ILikeIt/IDontLikeIt, given one of the main arguments was simply OtherStuffExists? To me, it's just simply an extremely minor addition that's it not worth stressing over.

I totally get the point about things that would lead to 'wildly different' articles, such as the infobox stats. Cap number for goal, wouldn't cause it to be "wildly different", in my view, rather "inconsequentially different". The MOS includes both score at goal and final score. Some might argue that score at goal is more overinformation than cap number. It's ultimately just a matter of perspective and not worth the effort fighting, if someone is willing to go through the effort to include *and* still ensure it is verifiable. RedPatch (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Again - just because we can does not mean we should. Even with the FIGC source there is a lot of manual counting, the information you are seeking is not easily available. GiantSnowman 16:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

They have returned and reverted again - now at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 13:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Which teams need individual season articles?

Which clubs need individual season articles? I'm talking about articles like this: 2022–23 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. Is there a definitive list of leagues that need them for every team? I am getting quite concerned about the gulf between English leagues and other leagues for this matter, as every single English league team has an article for the current season but several high-level foreign clubs such as Fluminense do not have one.

Ijustlikefootball (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, individual seasons should be per WP:GNG, Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. For example, Wrexham's last three seasons in the National League have season articles, because of the extraordinary coverage after the American takeover. The predominance of English pages is probably because on English Wikipedia, a lot of editing will be by English users, who can cite everything to BBC or local newspapers. Fluminense is an immensely large club but I suppose the user base on English Wikipedia is short on 1) people interested enough in the club to make a page, and 2) People with the right level of Portuguese and knowledge of Brazilian media to find the right sources. There is no reason that a page on a Fluminense season with enough sources will be deleted. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the language barrier will do it. I might have previously said the teams in the leagues listed at WP:FPL probably qualify but we don't use that anymore. A club like Fluminense ought to have a season article every year. Jay eyem (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say as long as they meet GNG (as Unknown said), then I see no reason why any professional club/top flight league team shouldn't have one. As long as there are editors willing to create and maintain them. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FPL used to cover this if I remember correctly but I believe it has become obsolete. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ijustlikefootball: I am curious, why did you single out the Tottenham season page? Govvy (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's just an example, don't take it personally. – PeeJay 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: WP:NSEASONS gives some general guidance. Hack (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It was just the first team that came to mind, nothing against spurs or any clubs related to them Ijustlikefootball (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Papua New Guinea national football team which may be of interest to this wider football audience. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Regarded as one of the best in the world"

I think that as a project, some sort of consensus should be taken because it is nearly impossible to find a page on any current top-flight player without finding "Regarded as one of the best position/players in the world, he is praised for his [attributes]". It seems that there are some accounts that live for adding this to the first paragraph of articles, usually using churnalism listacles such as 90Min, Lad/Sportsbible, Sportskeeda, Squawka as sources. These fail the Texas sharpshooter fallacy of only listing the sources that support the position, as well as being sources of low reputation. Whatever happened to watertight facts like "X was named Player of the Year three times" or "Y holds the goalscoring record for his club"? Things are becoming redundant when everyone is being regarded as the best.

What has really taken the biscuit for me has been seeing Kelechi Iheanacho listed as one of the best players in the world. One of the sources for this is that in October 2016, he had the best shots to goals record in Europe. [11] This has the caveats of a) being very early in the season, 2) being a substitute and therefore taking fewer shots early doors than players like Aguero and 3) having very strong teammates he doesn't have now at Leicester. Iheanacho scored 9 in 54 in his last two Premier League seasons for Leicester - a measure of his current ability when starting more frequently for a mediocre team. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Such wording should not be used in the lede, with the exception of a very limited number of players (e.g. Pele). GiantSnowman 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Dawid Dynarek - conflicting date of birth

Greetings, At this article's Talk, I posted details. For now, I left the two DOBs in the article the way I found them. It's confusing when reliable sources give different dates. Asking for expert help to determine what is correct. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm less certain on this one due to fewer resources and the method I used previously is not available to access this time (i.e. the player's Instagram). Soccerway seems to be a good factual website as it is used a lot in other articles, they give it as 9 March 1989. It's a shame the "current club" does not have a Wikipedia article which takes us to their club website and you can't open up any player's profiles here which probably should lead us to the correct facts about the player. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Page names/moves

Good afternoon, "teammates",

i know i should have used the article's talkpage before moving a page (thus, i somewhat apologise for that, but in my book this is an open-and-shut-case page move; also, the person who has moved the page twice, @Ortizesp:, also never used it). We have two very good English examples to illustrate why Costa Pereira should be moved (back) to Alberto Costa Pereira: it would be like naming Shaun Wright-Phillips just "Wright-Phillips", or Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain just "Oxlade-Chamberlain", as BOTH "Costa" and "Pereira" are surnames, "Alberto" being his given name.

Attentively (i'll also refrain from any actions on the page (move-wise, supposing i am still allowed to remove) until a decision is reached here) RevampedEditor (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You can request a move if you think the page should move which will allow consensus to be reached on the article talk page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I have reverted the move since it's controversial and was moved by @Ortizesp without any consensus in the first place. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I note that @Ortizesp: was previously under a topic ban (at ANI) related to page moves - I hope we don't have to go back down that path... GiantSnowman 19:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a WP:RM, User:RevampedEditor is mistaken as "Alberto Costa Pereira" isn't a commonly used name (not even used once in any of the references or external links) for the player. Feel free to discuss there. I didn't think it was controversial, but I have no issues WP:RM for these kinds of moves. Cheers! Ortizesp (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

As some of you may notice, this discussion on the Costa Pereira talk page is getting interesting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

B-class criteria

Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B6 ratings in the project banner)?

If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. The B-class criteria and their behaviour won't change, I'm just wondering if people here still actively use them. DFlhb (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that the two options are:

• to keep B-class criteria, and move them to the banner shell to reflect consensus for WP:PIQA
• to remove B-class criteria ratings from WikiProject banners, if people now consider them obsolete

The latter will happen, after further discussion, if the projects currently using B-class criteria signal that they lack interest in keeping it. DFlhb (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:MedioTiempo

Hello from german Wikipedia. You might take a look at this template and the link to webpage it generates. Somehow this page seems to be dead. Not really dead, it shows just just a line with some future dates, two names of football clubs and three numbers, but sure no additional information for the person in the article. And in a lot of cases you just see some 404-error page. in german Wikipedia we will delete this template. --Wurgl (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Hurst

His height in the infobox, is there another source to replace the one there, because we're not suppose to use IMDB. Unless it's removed entirely. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

England Football Online, citing Lamming's 1990 An English Football Internationalist Who's Who, gives 5 ft 11+1⁄2 in (1.82 m). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

K, have changed over, cheers, for those that don't know we have WP:IMDB. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article titles for continental and intercontinental competitions

I recently proposed a move to the article AC Milan in European football at its talk page. You can find more there, but I proposed a move to AC Milan in international football. My rationale was based on the fact that the club had played and won trophies in competitions beyond just Europe (like the Club World Cup) and also that many other major teams had articles on their non-domestic football titled in the same way.

Looking deeper at the articles' histories, they were started as xxx in European football (such as Liverpool's) and most were changed to xxx in international football around the start of September 2020 by a single editor who took a talk page discussion as evidence that this was justified.

Someone brought up the point that international football is mainly used to describe national teams, which I agree with. However, I still don't think xxx in European football is the right title for clubs that have played in intercontinental competitions. Intercontinental competitions like the Club World Cup and its predecessor have both been referred to as international in their respective there. Even in the main Liverpool article (which is a featured article), non-domestic trophies and competitions are referred to as international. I feel like this is something that needs to be a lot more consistent than it is right now and some consensus as to what the convention should be.

I'd appreciate some input here or on the talk page from other members of this WikiProject because I couldn't find anything about this in the naming conventions section. I hope this doesn't count as canvassing. I apologise if that's the case. Regards, Sgubaldo (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"International competition" is fine. We don't need to specify the sport's name in the title. SounderBruce 03:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That works for me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Also works and makes sense. HawkAussie (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should specify that it's football, as some teams have other sports team of the same name e.g. FC Barcelona also has a basketball team of the same name, Nordic countries tend to have multiple sports teams with the name of the sports club for all of them. So needs to be clear it's about football and not any other sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like @Joseph2302 said, I do think it’s worth mentioning the word ‘football’, my concern was moreso with the word ’international’. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They do not play 'international' football though - they are not a country. GiantSnowman 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If we have to include "football" then we have basically circled back to the original issue, unless someone can come up with an alternative word to "international" to use in this context. I can't think of one, personally, other than the totally unwieldy "So-and-so F.C. in continental and intercontinental football" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm struggling to think of an alternative. GiantSnowman 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused why the discussion seems to be split between locations (here and at the article's talk page). I think since there is an active RM currently, all the discussion should be there at the article's talk page under the RM section. --SuperJew (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Shéu

I am Portuguese and did know of this, but here's the following:

i edit(ed) this article extensively since i've been here, but turns out it was added in September 2020 he played in Canada. Same info was added by same user in (for example) Matateu, from the same Canadian newspaper. With no URL in both cases, i had to enter the paper's website and browse the archives; i was able to perform a search in Mr. Matateu's case and find the URL, not in Mr. Shéu, so, the question:

I suppose the Canadian National Soccer League was pretty much amateur in the 1980s, as was the MLS methinks, but i was wondering if in light of this new info (also, no proof he played any matches there) we must remove the "See also" section because then he will not have played his entire career in one club?

Attentively, happy weekend y'all! RevampedEditor (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Premier League first round draft picks navigational boxes

Category:Canadian Premier League first round draft picks navigational boxes

Do we really need this many navboxes related to the CPL draft? I certainly think we don't need the Number Two picks one... GiantSnowman 18:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely don't need Number Two picks. RedPatch (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the rest seem fine, but the Number Two picks doesn't make any sense to me. I know the CPL draft doesn't have the exposure of the MLS SuperDraft, and even that doesn't have templates for second picks as far as I know. The others seem fine, although it would be nice to turn some of those redlinks into articles. Jay eyem (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The redlinked players either never signed contracts or signed but never made appearances. I know NFOOTY isn't a thing, but the redlinked guys don't really pass GNG, so articles for them aren't really appropriate for them yet. RedPatch (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion based on this discussion: See here for the discussion RedPatch (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oof, didn't realize that. Not a great look when navboxes are full of redlinks. Wondering if we even need the full draft in each of those templates then, rather than just a first round. Jay eyem (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Given its only two rounds, leaving both is okay. The early years changed the redlinks to nolinks, so maybe we can just keep that formatting, change it from a redlink to a nolink, after a year if they don't get a page?

That's fair, I am mostly just concerned about all of the redlinks. Since the draft is so short I think the links could be removed until they have an article and leave the entire draft in the template. Jay eyem (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely starting to feel the template creep on Canadian Premier League articles in general. Let's continue to keep an eye on it. BLAIXX 14:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

AC ChievoVerona

Is the title correct? I thought there was suppose to be a space between Chievo and Verona. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See its talk page. Should always be your first port of call. Seasider53 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

lol, I still questioned it. I wasn't too sure. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My other question, is the club still in existence? Or is it defunct now? Govvy (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. Be nice if there was an article about it. Seasider53 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ballons d'Or

Since 2022, the award has not been awarded for what players do throughout a calendar year, but rather a football season. I would suggest that we not put "Inter Miami" next to Messi in the page, because he received the trophy for what he did with PSG (and obviously Argentina). Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources identify the Ballon d'Or winner as "Inter Miami player Lionel Messi". We should not be going against the tide of sources. SounderBruce 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not add list all clubs played for during the season? GiantSnowman 21:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ye it covers the period of july 1st 2022 - june 30th 2023. he was a psg player.Muur (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Stomil Olsztyn men's football

Article needs moving back, Govvy (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of Paradygmaty moves look wrong to me, moves without consensus, etc, seems highly disruptive. [12]. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the move and left the user a message. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Felipe Diogo

I was wondering about this player, whether this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS, pretty tragic what happened, but SIGNOV? Govvy (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, quite possible. GiantSnowman 20:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

Hello, I nominated these articles for deletion; Sikiru Alimi and Kadisha Martina on WP:RFD. I would love to see your contributions. Jõsé ^hola 07:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

New user and future tournaments

Just wanted to ask fellow users to keep an eye on RobertoSanchez1990, who is creating articles on new, unannounced tournaments and friendlies without much care for facts or sourcing. Much of the information is speculative, and they don't seem to understand the draft process (copying-and-pasting impatiently instead of improving the draft when rejected). SounderBruce 07:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Can anyone find any evidence that 2024 Audi Cup is actually a thing? I can't. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I can't find anything either. I'd just PROD it. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hird

someone, an anon user it seems, keeps changing Sam Hird's stats to made up stats so if someone could deal with itMuur (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

still happening https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&diff=1183488102&oldid=1182887699 Muur (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection should hopefully solve that problem for the foreseeable future. I've checked the article, the current version looks fine to me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Kidiaba

On the Robert Kidiaba page, it says he played 5 matches at the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup which sounds impossible as the highest number of matches you can play at a single CWC tournament is 4, but I found out he actually played 5 matches at two FIFA Club World Cup tournaments but the source referenced seems to be unavailable.

Can Soccerway, Transfermarkt and/or WorldFootball.net be used as a good replacement in order to use the correct information. Jõsé ^hola 06:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the number of appearances Kidiaba made and instead added the achievement of reaching the final with TP Mazembe which arguably is more notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This confirms he made 3 appearances in the 2010 tournament, and this confirms he made 2 appearances in the 2009 tournament - so it's 5 appearances overall. GiantSnowman 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There's an archive copy of the older FIFA player page (the one with content, rather than just huge print and links to videos) HERE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the link, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: and GiantSnowman.

1. What are your takes on these two redirects I nominated for deletion; Sikiru Alimi and Kadisha Martina.

2. How do I add them to Nigerian/Football related articles/redirects for deletion? Jõsé ^hola 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

1. I have no objections.

2. I don't know. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think these are valid discussions to include on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves page where you'll see a table of all currently active discussions. Adding these discussions should help others to notice that there are redirects for discussion. Just make sure in the "Nom" column the link and piping needs to be correct and include (I think) the third point above the table which begins "Note: This discussion...". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Erik ten Hag

According to Manchester United, Erik ten Hag has managed 79 matches and won 50 of those at Manchester United [13].

However according to the source in the article on his Erik ten Hag#Managerial statistics he has managed 78 and rather won 49, as shown here [14]. Same as this on soccerbase; [15]. Interestingly though not reliable, Transfermarkt states that he has managed 78 and won 50 [16].

Can anyone get other sources to provide references for either of them? Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what Man U count as the 79th match because I can only count 78 competitive matches since he took over. I'd go with the source on the page or Soccebase. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. The Manchester United site also claims they have won 30 Premiership games in his charge, which is false. Their record in 2022-23 was 23-6-9, and this season it is 6-0-5, making 29-6-14 in total. The reason that transfermarkt is showing 50-8-20 and Soccerbase is showing 49-9-20 is the penalty shoot-out win over Brighton in the FA Cup last season. TM counts it as a win, Soccerbase as a draw. These figures are correct as far as I can see, depending on which value of a penalty shoot-out you use.

• 2022/23 - 38 PL, 6 FAC, 6 EFLC, 12 UEFAEL. Total: 62
• 2023/24 - 11 PL, 2 EFLC, 3 UEFACL. Total: 16

So where are Manchester United getting the 79th game from? I don't know, but I strongly suspect it's someone on their editorial team who can't add up. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Steve fae Scotland's right, that's definitely 78 matches and the Brighton penalty shootout must have been recognised as a win. I think Ten Hag is be the quickest manager to reach 50 wins, which this news article agrees.[17]. I suspect the 79 might be a typo. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a typo, because they've also got the error that Ten Hag has won 30 Premiership games when it's only 29. It's almost certainly a cockup of some sort in MUFC's editorial department and they've counted a game twice. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wu Lei

Wu Lei could use a few more eyes. An IP has been making additions that I consider WP:undue and WP:original research as I have explained on the article's Talk page. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Would posting at WP:RfPP help. Then it'd get protected and the ip couldn't edit? RedPatch (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Would be a good idea since they continue to revert and the discussion on the talk page will lead nowhere. Kante4 (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, RedPatch. I wanted to avoid going that route but my attempt to resolve the dispute through communication was unsuccessful so I have requested page protection. Meanwhile, could someone revert the IP? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The page is protected for 96 hours, and I also reported that IP to WP:ANEW. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Qingdao Hainiu

Hi, I always thought that Qingdao Hainiu F.C. not redirecting to the club currently with the same name and have been historically known by this name, but rather a club that used the name for like three years and had since dissolved was a bit strange. I'd appreciate some opinions here. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Current squad

Should we make, as standard practice, both:

"The following 21 players were called up for the match against Categoria on 1 January 2020."

and

"Information correct as of 1 January 2020"

have sources after them? One to show the link that the squad is taken from, the other for the reader (or another editor) to understand where the cap/goal figure came from? Would make editing easier as well as being better for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, like it is at Germany national football team#Current squad. Kante4 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly like that, though I'm guessing the majority of national teams won't have as detailed a website so will probably have to use National Football Teams instead. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries in the United Kingdom

Weirdness on the article, I point to the London derbies first, I've never heard of Tottenham West Ham referred to as River Lea derby, why would Tottenham and Chelsea one come under North West London heading? I do question some of these ideas for derbies, not to mention, the strange vandalism over time. Is there disruption and a lot of miss-information on it? I feel the article needs a good look at, regards. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No such thing as the River Lea derby and also there is antagonism between West Ham and Tottenham but to big this up as a rivalry is stretching it somewhat.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tidied up the Scotland ones. I wouldn't know where to start with some of the others though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Should Youth Career go in "Early life" section or "Club career" section

Should a player's youth career go in the early life section, or a separate section in "Club Career" section. Personally, I feel it should go in the Early Life section (if there is one), rather than a Club career section, as I feel club career is more for the Senior Career of a player. Just looking to get the wider community's opinion on this. RedPatch (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a big deal for me but i would agree putting it in the early life section. Kante4 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's local teams, put in 'Early life'; if it's notable clubs, put in 'Club career'. GiantSnowman 19:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends, if it's the local team they played for aged 10, then early life. If it's a proper youth team like an under-18s teams, then career/club career section. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I like starting the club career section with debut/pro contract whichever comes first, and then youth clubs in early life. But not really fussed either way. Ortizesp (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's the same club as the "Club career" section would otherwise start with, put it in there. If it's just local youth teams, I'd put it in "Early life". I think it also depends how much there is to say, though. For Marcus Rashford, the description of his time with Fletcher Moss Rangers is in his "Youth career" subsection, so there's an argument both ways. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Dominican Republic national football team#Records

Hi all, (& @AltagraciaRD:)

I've strayed into 3RR territory. Please can someone rule as to whether the photos displayed in a Player Records section are required to depict individuals whilst on national team duty or not!

The photographs in question.

Many thanks, Felixsv7 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What a ridiculous argument - of course they don't need to specifically depict them on national duty -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We're lucky to have photos at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: They've now gone ahead and removed the whole section Felixsv7 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them. GiantSnowman 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

FC Barcelona Featured article review

I have nominated FC Barcelona for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Immobile captain

Let's give your opinion about this talk. IP keeps insisting on supporting his "point of view". Island92 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Nigeria away shirt at 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

I commented on Group B's talk page, but apparently no one paid attention. The Nigeria away shirt in the article is wrong, a dark green one was used, not a purple/violet one. I tried to edit previously but the changes were reverted, I would like to know how to proceed. Svartner (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (again)

There is a move discussion - still in progress after a few weeks - on Talk:Papua New Guinea national football team which may be of interest to this wider football audience. There is clear Support to change the article name from Football to Soccer, but no consensus about adding the word "Men's" into the title as well. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Further to this, the result of the move request was: Moved, in part, just to change the article names from Football to Soccer. However, I have reposted on that Talk page as I think the associated Categories and Templates also need to be changed (10 in total). Can this be done manually (under WP:BOLD) for each one, or should it be requested to be done en masse through a WP:Categories for discussion process? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Indonesia national football team#Current squad

Hi again,

So I have been having a minor editing war with two unresponsive users (@Sugiyono Caniago: and :@Danisamsoel:) over the correct cap figures for Indonesian players but despite attempting to engage in conversation I have not received any response, only continued reverting.

The question is: When using National Football Teams, is there a consensus on whether to include games listed as non-FIFA games on a player's total? The examples I chose were Cristiano Ronaldo and Sergio Ramos who both have their "non-FIFA" games included in their totals (as confirmed by RSSSF.

The issue has arisen around Fachrudin Aryanto who's cap number (57) is confirmed on RSSSF (which hasn't updated for the October fixture yet).

Felixsv7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of ambiguity. For example, in CONCACAF, there are matches against non-FIFA teams such as Guadeloupe (but who are CONCACAF members) that take place in the official CONCACAF continental tournament (CONCACAF Gold Cup) which typically get included in the official cap number since they happen in an officially-sanctioned tournament. Is there a reason why these matches are considered non-FIFA? I think one of the Portugal matches was against Gerogia (who are both FIFA nations), so any idea as to why the match was deemed non-FIFA? Could it have been an unofficial training match (ie. not 90 minutes, other reasons)? RedPatch (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Even for Romelu Lukaku, games which are not considered official matches are counted towards his total as is explained on Belgium's page. For simplicity I'd include all fixtures listed on National Football Teams in order to avoid WP:NOR but happy to be overruled. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

For Lukaku FIFA considers these matches as official : https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/7a29d8a2cac79416/original/Century-Club-01112021.pdf Frenchl (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Eastville Stadium

Should the article infobox not use Infobox venue instead of Infobox Historic building? Or does it not matter? Govvy (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

More than half of the page is about its existence as a greyhound track rather than as a football ground. Would it be appropriate to have two infoboxes - both greyhound and football? Not sure how other multi use stadiums are treated but that could be why page is set up as it is ColchesterSid (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Jan Košek stats

@Kaizako10: is adding friendly stats to the infobox and stats table at Jan Košek - should these be included or not? I say no, as it is standard to only include domestic league games. GiantSnowman 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendlies should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendlies should not be included. Demt1298 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I am curious, what was the league back there then? I am assume he has mixed friendlies and league together. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think friendlies shouldn't be included. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It literally says at the bottom of the infobox *Club domestic league appearances and goals. So there's no reason to include games which were not league games, otherwise the footnote is a lie -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all - the consensus is clear and as I suspected it would be. I have re-removed the stats with a link here. GiantSnowman 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

How can I display his stats Sexy Beast (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I (personally - can't speak for anyone else) would not object to them being put in a "career statistics" table further down the article, where it can be made clear exactly what the games were, but matches which weren't league matches absolutely shouldn't be in the infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I understand the removal of stats from the infobox, but why remove the table that has been given multiple citations? Surely you should only be doing a part rv? Govvy (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

* FYI - @GiantSnowman, I updated this footballer's DOB from July 28 to July 18 as listed at reliable source worldfootball.net and another of the article cites. And updated at two articles (what links here). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

His friendly stats should not be mentioned in any stats box. No issue with a stats box being re-inserted covering only competitive matches. GiantSnowman 18:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

List of…

I saw a couple of edits that reverted someone's addition of List of Manchester United managers to a couple of manager articles, the reason given being that navboxes already give that information. Navboxes don't appear in mobile browsers (at least the ones I use), however, so it seems a lame argument. I don't think linking the lists the subjects appear in in the "see also" is a bad approach. Thoughts? Seasider53 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well Alex Ferguson's see also section could look like this:

==See also==

• List of Manchester United F.C. managers
• List of Aberdeen F.C. managers
• List of East Stirlingshire F.C. managers
• List of Scottish League Cup winning managers
• List of Scottish Cup winning managers
• List of Scottish football championship-winning managers
• List of FA Cup winning managers
• List of English football championship-winning managers
• List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers
• List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers
• List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers
• List of FIFA Club World Cup winning managers
• List of Intercontinental Cup winning managers

Generally avoid using see also sections for individual people. EchetusXe 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

These are both good points. I think it raises a larger point that the community should discuss - how should we treat mobile users? What is the reason navboxes don't work on mobile (is it technical or a decision)? And perhaps it should be changed (get around the technical side or rediscuss the idea) --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)