Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

"Former nationality footballer" or "Nationality former footballer"

OK, so I don't want to start the world's lamest edit war, so I'm just bringing this here for additional input.

• 9 November: I create the page Jokin Uria
• TheLongTone makes an edit with the summary "grammar" [1] This changes Uria from a "Spanish former footballer" to a "former Spanish footballer"
• I undo with the summary "he's still Spanish" [2]

• 23 November: I create the page Martín Begiristain
• TheLongTone edits with the summary "nobody has a career as a former footballer" [3].
• I revert and say that every other page I have seen uses this wording. I reference this talk page as where we can get WP:CONSENSUS for something that concerns hundreds of thousands of pages
• TheLongTone makes a second revert and says "they are all wrong" [4]

Now, I'm probably going to be accused of WP:CANVASsing like-minded people, but surely this is where we get WP:CONSENSUS on things that apply to loads of pages. I haven't seen TheLongTone editing in football before, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's going to make pages stick out if you're only making a change on one of many. You get consensus for something shared across loads of pages.

"Former Spanish footballer" is incorrect. The man is still alive and still Spanish. The wording says that he is formerly Spanish, or formerly involved in something called "Spanish football". Note the difference between "Former French horn player" and "French former horn player", or "Former Brazilian jujitsu instructor" and "Brazilian former jujitsu instructor".

Also consider that "former" can be substituted by "ex-". Would we say "Manchester United's ex-Scottish manager" or "Manchester United's Scottish ex-manager"?

This isn't even an esoteric football thing. "American former actor" [5] "Dutch former politician and former civil servant" [6] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Spanish former as, as you said, he's still spanish and alive. Kante4 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be '[Nationality] former footballer', not 'former [Nationality] footballer'. People still retain their nationality even if retired from their profession. GiantSnowman 18:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. "Former Spanish footballer" could be interpreted to mean that he is now a French footballer or a German footballer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Spanish former footballer is the correct form. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

As above. Grammatically the structure matters particularly if the word used is "former". If we were to use the term "retired" it would be passable. However there are plenty of instances where former reads better (such as when they have follow on careers) and the consensus on wikipedia is still "Name retired job" or "Name former job" (see Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Carl Fogarty, James Toseland and so on). There's some nuance to be had in some cases I am sure (particularly where a person has a long career with multiple roles where what they are notable for changes). Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

There's edit-warring about which sources can be used for his statistics. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a bit more than that. Numerous anon IPs and one particular editor appear to wish to remove anything which shows the subject in a bad light while also emphasising his qualifications and managerial record (by expecting the reader to go through all the fixtures listed on Soccerway and adding up games, wins, etc.) No proof but such dedication might indicate a closeness to the subject and thus a conflict of interest?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Numerous SPAs have edited the article in the same way over the past few dating back to article creation. Likely the same person each time coming up with a new account. It has been discussed on this page a few times already. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_136#James_Rowe_(football_manager) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_149#James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983),_BLP-issue. This time around it got semi-protected, but now that the 4 days for autoconfirmed status has passed, they are now re-starting the removal of info. RedPatch (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see a few things that do need tidying there, I think there's better ways to deal with some of the content. But if there is a dedicated anti-content user then a request for page protection is required. Koncorde (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Worth remembering that this article has a long history of COI and SPA editing (I believe the creator was his mother). The edit summaries of the 'new' user editing the article suggests they may be a continuation of the former. Number 57 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Also interesting how they their issue is with vandalism, but then went and made this edit on another article. RedPatch (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If an un-involved admin would like to up the protection-level or issue a page-block, that'd be great. But then, I'm one of the vandals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO, Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#And_we_have_another_WP:EW indicates that a block is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Mario has now been indeffed... GiantSnowman 22:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

And it turns out it was his mum again! Ironically I think we've ended up with a bit of a Streisland effect here – the article was created to promote the subject when arguably it shouldn't have been (at the time WP:NFOOTY was still a thing and he failed it) and now the creator has lost control of its contents.

Separately, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, while assuming good faith is nearly always to be applauded, I think the amount of bending over backwards to help with this did take it too far. Perhaps a lesson learnt... Number 57 12:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Simon Weaver managerial stats

Simon Weaver's game tonight was his 766th as Harrogate manager, see this - but Soccerbase says 754 (as of writing), which might become 755 if it hasn't yet been updated. Can we find the missing 11/12 games? GiantSnowman 22:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Soccerbase are missing some FA Trophy matches. Final v Concorde in 2021, there's no previous rounds shown. Also in their non-league days, 2 or 3 clubs results were expunged. Spare Koppers (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Career Statistics Table: NWSL x Liga MX Femenil Summer Cup

Little question about Career Statistics in regard to NWSL players. This year, all NWSL and a handful of Liga MX Femenil clubs participated in a summer tournament, the NWSL x Liga MX Femenil Summer Cup. However, in the Career Statistics tables that many player pages have, there are a lot of discrepancies as to where data from this Summer Cup goes.

Some pages have it listed in the Cup section with the NWSL Challenge Cup, some have it listed in the Continental section along with the CONCACAF W Champions Cup, and some have it listed in the Other section with the NWSL Fall Series.

In the past, I have tended to put the statistics in the Cup section, but I'm suddenly not quite sure if it's the right move. An argument could be made for and against each of the three categories, and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus across articles. What is the right move here?

24Anonymous (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As there is potential for a women's version of the U.S. Open Cup, I think the Summer Cup statistics should remain in the "Other" column with an appropriate note. MLS players have Leagues Cup statistics in the "Other" column, along with the playoffs and other competitions. SounderBruce 07:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be 'Other'. GiantSnowman 09:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be Other. It is most similar to MLS/Liga MX Leagues Cup which goes in other. Coincidentally, Leagues Cup did cause confusion with editors putting in in various spots originally as well (Continental, League Cup, Other) but has now mostly stabilized to other. RedPatch (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, Other it is. Thank you all!!! 24Anonymous (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ben Dawson

Should Dawson be classed as a caretaker manager of Newcastle, including in lists and templates? In July 2019, there was a period when Rafa Benitez was gone and Steve Bruce hadn't arrived. Dawson led Newcastle on a pre-season tour in China. This source describes him as "in charge" and about to "handover" to Bruce. [8] Local media in China (in before "not reliable", we're not talking about Taiwan or Hong Kong politics here) called him the "acting coach". [9] It looks to me that Dawson was doing everything Benitez or Bruce would have been doing, even if it was for non-competitive games. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

National football team seasons - part 2

From a discussion two weeks ago on yearly national team seasons/results articles, I want to further discuss on a potential demise of them.

Whilst some yearly national team season/results articles can have a great extensive overview/summary of the national team in a specific year, alongside its matches and its player statistics, take 2024 Australia national soccer team season as an example, here's my problem: I don't agree that national teams play "seasons" or in organised periods that we can differentiate in seperate articles of their matches played.

National teams don't go through a seasonal phase like club football does; they can happen literally any time. Competition dates can be anytime, squad announcements can be anytime, matches can be anytime, it doesn't make sense. They're not really seasons. I strongly believe every national team "season"/results articles should be merged with other relevant articles. FastCube (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think all the details can neatly be included within the respective Year in Country football article (2023–24 in Australian soccer and 2024–25 in Australian soccer in that case, which already has a lot of it anway). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that they don't have seasons as defined by a league. The meaning is more how the team did over a period of time - in this case a calendar year. They might be merit to rename the articles I would support that discussion. However I think having them in 10 year bunches just creates a list of results and barely any prose, statistics, or depth. End of the day you can also say that a decade is as arbitrary as a year. And while Competition dates can be anytime, squad announcements can be anytime, matches can be anytime is sort of true (it's limited by FIFA windows, club's seasons etc.), there is still talk of a calendar year in discussion of national football teams (for example). --SuperJew (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Btw I like how FastCube went 180 from creating yearly articles for fringe teams with barely any games or info (for example 2013 Gibraltar or 1956 Saarland) to I strongly believe every national team "season"/results articles should be merged with other relevant articles. --SuperJew (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Periodic results (usually in decades) are enough for National teams. Svartner (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Matty Macarthur

Can somebody look at this article and decide if the sunject is sufficiently notable to have an article. He appears never to have played at a higher level than the National League South. Thanks. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. GiantSnowman 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, It's on the edge of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Precisely which coverage is significant? GiantSnowman 16:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There's only one source currently in the article which is independent and not a stats database. Unless there are other sources out there which aren't currently in the article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

...and that article (the Kent Online one) is WP:ROUTINE. GiantSnowman 16:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)