Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100

On loan doubt

Is a player on loan until the club's season ends or until loan period expires? See Rochinha. SLBedit (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say until loan period expires (often 30 June). Qed237 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and we don't know if the player will stay at the club we was loaned to, unless there's some reference. I'm going to restore the page. SLBedit (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A domestic loan expires once the club's playing season is over, which for Bolton was the day after their last matchday of 2 May. International loans might be different, but I see no reason or evidence why they should be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the references only say the loan would be until the end of the season. SLBedit (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2 here, I normally remove loans after the last game of the season. GiantSnowman 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Image in trophy list

What do we say about these edits adding trophies. If I remember correctly it is not allowed? I have removed them but need input if I am right or wrong. Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That was the wrong edit with the HUGE image of the cup. I redid it to make it the 20px size. But anyway, User:Qed237 is saying that there may be a copyvio, however they are images with the code from the wiki commons. I think they should be allowed, just my two cents, open to more input. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 18#Euro cup icons and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#European Cup logos... again for previous discussions. And e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FIFA World Cup (Rimet).svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coppacoppe2.png for deletion of similar images at Commons as derivative works of copyright trophies. I'd guess the current ones have been created since the last batch of deletions and they're still on Commons because no-one's nominated them for deletion yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION says icons shouldn't just be used for decorative purposes. That's exactly what these icons are for, and therefore they should be avoided. – PeeJay 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Bale and the transfer fee record

This was brought to my attention to by Adnan n2, but Gareth Bale's transfer fee to Real Madrid is listed as the highest in several articles, but the fee was actually lower than Ronaldo's, even without inflation adjustment. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and edit the lists in these articles:

• List of most expensive association football transfers
• World football transfer record
• Transfer (association football)

But a couple of things: it seems List of most expensive association football transfers should be renamed to something like List of most highest association football transfers List of highest association football transfer fees, since I've seen news discuss "most expensive" in terms of the value and not the absolute amount of the fees. And is there any way to make sure the fees in these tables are correct, considering reported fees are often wrong? Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No way to tell really, if sources differ. -Koppapa (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• "List of most highest association football transfers" is nowhere near grammatically correct. The current title is infinitely better than that option. I really don't follow your logic on that point. Also, we can't do anything if reported fees are "wrong", as that would be original research. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the suggested article name - better? It seems we should still differentiate between reported figures on undisclosed fees vs fees published by clubs (assuming there aren't conflicting numbers). Mosmof (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the "most expensive" verbiage, there's the argument that Neymar was the most expensive because of clauses in the transfer in addition to the fee, or that even at 100 million, Ronaldo's transfer was still more expensive because of inflation. "Highest transfer fee" (which would be limited to the basic fee minus escalator clauses and sell-on fees) is more specific than "most expensive transfer". Mosmof (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

first point

..I have asked for mergin for List of most expensive association football transfers & World football transfer record both of them talking about the same topic which is transfer record and even one of them stopped being updated since 2013 . and then both articles seem an extended edition for this section at this article [[1]] especially if you go down to the [[2]] do you agree guys ? what do you think ?

2nd point the problem about transfers usually sources differ from eachother.. but I think we should take the newest source about it especially in Ronaldo's case, since it is published after several months from the transfer and the article clearly stats it is revealed and then we should go with the club official website about the value of the website regardless of other sources if it is existed , what d you think also guys ?

Adnan (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing though, while Real Madrid claim that Bale cost 91 million euro, Tottenham claim he cost 100. There might be some accounting trickery or a hidden agent fee somewhere in there, but it's not exactly a settled matter, and everyone has an interest in quoting their own figure. Mosmof (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes a fee can be clarified when it appears in the club accounts for that financial year. Or more specifically, when a reliable secondary source reports on those accounts. Unfortunately in this case the Spurs accounts only quoted total profit due to player trading. Fees are normally more transparent when one of the clubs is listed on a stock exchange, but neither Spurs nor Real Madrid are. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• The proposed title is still worse than the existing one, and you're quibbling over things that mean exactly the same damn thing. Yes, there are conflicting figures for transfers, but that's the same for most of them... and always will be, due to the nature of the beast (because we pretty much never know exactly what makes up the transfer fees) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking in A-League National Youth League season pages

I've noticed that template's such as {{ALeague AU}}, etc. are being used for |team1= and |team2= in the {{footballbox}} templates used in for the round-by-round results in articles such as 2009–10 A-League National Youth League. The "ALeague" templates wikilink to the parent clubs which seems unusual to me since the articles are about YL teams. Doesn't it make more sense to wikilink to the relevant YL team instead, e.g., linking to Adelaide United FC Youth instead of Adelaide United FC, per WP:SPECIFICLINK? According to National Youth League (Australia)#Clubs, there are stand-alone Wikipedia articles for almost all of the YL teams, so it shouldn't be a major hassle to fix the link markup.

I came across something similar in the results table in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League#Positions by round where the |t= for {{Fb rbr t pos}} are all set to the parent clubs. Looking at Template:Fb rbr t pos/doc#Usage, it appears there's a way to linking directly to YL pages using |tl=. There are also some YL templates listed in Category:Fb team templates Australia such as Template:Fb team Adelaide United Youth and Template:Fb team Brisbane Roar Youth which can be used with |t=.

I'm not asking anyone do any of the above. I can easily be bold and "fix" the wikilinks while repairing dead links. I'm just curious as to whether this type of linking is a WP:WPF guideline or preference. If linking via templates is preferred over direct links, then I think I should have no problem creating new YL team short-cut templates (ala Category:A-League team shortcut templates) such as {{AYLeague AU}}, etc. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sence to link to the youth teams, if they have articles. Using new templates is not optimal, especially for completed seasons, just use nomal wikilinks. Why are there 10 teams in the table in 2009/10, but only 9 have played? There is no explanation. -Koppapa (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about linking to the youth teams directly, and also agreed that you definitely don't need to do it using templates. Just use plain wikilinks. – PeeJay 08:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I'm not sure why the Western Sydney Wanderers FC Youth are in that table since they seem to have not been founded until 2012. My guess is that somebody was using a later season's article for reference and just copy-and-pasted the table markup into the 2009-2010 season's article without giving it much thought. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You should definately use wikilinks ahead of the templates, and if possible wikilink to the youth team. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Order of infoboxes

Keith Barker is a former footballer of little repute, but a cricketer of growing reputation. Given his burgeoning career with bat and ball already vastly exceeds that with ball alone, would you chaps support me in putting the cricket infobox first? --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that he's already played more than 150 county matches, I'd say his cricket career definitely takes precedence over his football career. That said, he played football first so we ought to retain the chronology of the article. However, I don't see a problem with putting the cricket infobox at the very top with a pared-down football infobox in the appropriate place below. – PeeJay 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd say have a section on football career and a section on cricket career, and include the relevant infoboxes in each section. This does not necessarily have to be chronological if there is consensus that he is better known as a cricketer than a footballer, regardless of what made him technically notable first. GiantSnowman 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could both be embedded in {{Infobox person}}? Hack (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a fine idea, Hack. Agreed on chronology of text. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no idea how to do that. Can anyone help? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: I'll mock it up on the talk page of the article. Hack (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Smashing, ta. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Iuliu Barátky listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Iuliu Barátky to be moved to Iuliu Baratky. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tang Miao (footballer, born October 1990) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tang Miao (footballer, born October 1990) to be moved to Tang Miao. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

List of most expensive association football transfers listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of most expensive association football transfers to be moved to List of highest association football transfer fees. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Jovan Blagojević listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jovan Blagojević to be moved to Jovan Blagojevic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter

Hello. The article "Sepp Blatter" has received a lot of vandalism today. I have asked for the article to be semi-protected, which has been done. I have also fixed the obvious vandalism in the article. However I am not particularly familiar with Mr Blatter's career and controversies.

Could someone from this WikiProject read through the article and correct any remaining vandalism? Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Axl: Had a quick look, doesn't seem anything obviously wrong with it. The article is also on pending change, so I guess most of the new/IP edits would have been reverted by that. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Joseph! Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Christian Atsu

Christian Atsu has not officially signed on loan for AFC Bournemouth until 1 July. Could you please monitor the article. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapse

Could someone please take a look at the templates at bottom of 2015–16 UEFA Europa League and 2015–16 UEFA Champions League and also the tiebreakers and Group stage section that is "wikitable collapsible collapsed". To me they are not collapsed and I cant get it to work. Is it only for me and what is the solution? Please help. Qed237 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It works fine in Internet Explorer (both logged in and not looged in) and in Google Chrome when I am not logged in. It is when I am logged in at Google Chrome they are not collapsed. Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be working today. Qed237 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Next season

Hi, I was wondering when we consider next season to start?

On some articles like Premier League and Template:Premier League some editors put 2015-16 as current season but I think it is too soon? Okay, the 2014–15 Premier League ended sunday, but the domestic cup is still playing (final on sunday) and Champions League is also still playing. Also transfer window opens officially 1 July (domestic transfer can happen before), so does it not feel like new season starts then, when clubs can start buying players for next season? We could at least let all clubs finish their matches first or what do you think?. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it can depend on the league/country. for English competitions the season is not considered over until the last domestic match has been played (the FA cup final this season) which would make it end at the end of may. after this we are in the 'off-season' (or post season or pre season). I could be convinced that it should include the european or international competitions but as a bare minimum it shouldn't switch until at least the last domestic match has been played. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Spudgfsh: Could you take a look at the mentioned template at Template:Premier League, some editors dont agree. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Syria women's national football team

I don't know football. Someone should take a look at Syria women's national football team and check the Talk page. I removed some empty sections, you might want to check the history to see the empty tables I removed. A fancy table with Did Not Enter for every Worldcup year looked ridiculous. And I have no idea why "Michael Palmer" is the only named player on a women's team list. Alsee (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Palmer has impressively been a Syrian international since December 2010! Jared Preston (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jonas (footballer)

Could you take a look at this orphan article Jonas (footballer). SLBedit (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked it at. What exactly am I supposed to be looking at? GiantSnowman 09:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I wondered that too...but thought I must have missed something. Eagleash (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What are we meant to be looking at? I looked for Jonas on Google, but just found Jonas Gutierrez or some Angolan politician. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is orphan, minimal, lacks sources. Is anyone interested in improving it? SLBedit (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request at FC_Barcelona

A new account Midosept made a semi-protected edit request at Talk:FC_Barcelona#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_31_May_2015. It's a request to add a list of corporate sponsors to the article. I'll let you guys figure out what, if anything, to include in the article. Alsee (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Name in squad template

In {{AS Monaco FC squad}} (and other templates), should we use "Bernardo Silva" "B. Silva" or just "Silva" or "Bernardo"? Same doubt about "Ricardo Carvalho". SLBedit (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think we should follow the shirt name blindly, remember some years ago Guti had "GUTI HAZ" in his jersey to honour his children. I always go with how the player is known (nickname, surname, first name), then add an initial if there is a player with the same surname in the squad (for example, CA Osasuna, there are the Flaño brothers. In Monaco, since that problem does not exist, I would go with "Silva" and "Carvalho").

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There's Matheus Carvalho. SLBedit (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well observed. Well, in that case, "R. Carvalho" and "M. Carvalho". --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Vermaelen's page question please :

as far as I know in Spain you aren't required to play a minimum number of games as a player to win a trophy..as far as you are registered with the first team you can be named as a winner of it..any other ideas? I was talking with my friend @Qed237: and he suggested to ask here for more confirmation about this. here is a videos la liga celebration for the trophy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVeAFf2pHtM Copa del rey celebration  : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA_iJqipTGg

I mean it is the same concept for Spanish super cup..if you still registered with the first team but didn't play neither games you still win a medal for it. what do you think guys? thank you . Adnan (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I know in England an many other leagues you have to have played a certain amount of matches (5 I think) to actualy recieve the medal, otherwise ther would be a whole lot of medals to young players who only played like 10 minutes. Qed237 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am questioning if Thomas Vermaelen can be considered as league champions, when he only particiapated in one match. Qed237 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Do reliable sources confirm he won a winner's medal? GiantSnowman 09:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

you can see him with the team when they are getting the medal at the both videos for both copa del rey and league... and is not should be reliable sources to say if there is a special minimum ? or otherwise he should be considered a medal winner since he is registered with the first team ? Adnan (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In Spain, generally all players registered with the main squad win a medal. The limit are 25, so all those 25 receive the winners' medal, while some youngsters who did played regularly receive it too. MYS77 ^✉ 14:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Similar to the Champions League, if you're registered in the 25-man squad for La Liga, you're generally considered to have won the league, regardless of how many games you've played. – PeeJay 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source about this anywhere? Because I couldn't find one. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

and I have a question also please,I know youtube is a user-generated site..but in this case it is just showing the medal celebration, so why can't be seen as a source for this ? thank you Adnan (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In this article (http://www.mundodeportivo.com/futbol/fc-barcelona/20150523/20212203737/vermaelen-he-ganado-la-liga-pero-no-la-siento-mia.html), he is quoted as saying: "I have won La Liga, but I don't feel it to be me mine"; I don't know if that helps at all, or if that can serve as a reliable source. In Serie A, usually if you are in the squad, you are awarded a medal, even without having played a match, so I assume it is the same in Spain, although I know that in the Premier League, you have to play a minimum number of matches in order to be awarded a medal.

This article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3079697/Thomas-Vermaelen-Champions-League-winners-medal-Barcelona-despite-not-playing-minute-new-club-summer-Arsenal.html) states that he would also be eligible to win a Champions League medal. Messirulez (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Famous Fans

Is listening celebrities in fan pages really notable? Noticed in in these pages but it was reverted and thought i'd come here to reach a consensus.

• Celtic F.C. supporters
• Rangers F.C. supporters

MB1972 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is no, unless they're specifically notable for supporting the club. For example, I prefer the approach at Norwich City F.C.#Supporters, which lists 5 celebrities only, most of whom have well-publicised links to the club. List of "celebrity X say they support team Y" are WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that some minor celebrity once said in an interview "oh yeah, I'm a big Man U fan" with no indication that they've ever been within 100 miles of the ground just isn't a notable aspect of the club. Apart from anything else, celebs are notorious for claiming to be "fans" of multiple different clubs, and of not being able to remember who it is they allegedly support.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus used to be that who a notable person supported was relevant to them, not to the club, so should appear in their Wikipedia page if at all. As an example, the "featured" article about the recently losing FA Cup finalists has one-and-a-half screensfull (on my PC) of supposedly famous supporters, mostly unsourced or sourced to non-RS or trivia pages. I'd have no problem with including people genuinely well-publicised as fans of the club, in a sentence outlining their connection with it and with multiple reliable mainstream sources to confirm it, e.g. Prince William as a supporter of the recently losing FA Cup finalists, Nigel Kennedy, and the bloke Chris mentioned with the memory problem (just for amusement value), but the rest... Consensus used to be that who a notable person supported was relevant to them, not to the club, so should appear in their Wikipedia page if at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely the difference here is the Norwich City article is about Norwich City so a passing mention on notable supporters is appropriate. The Celtic and Rangers articles mentioned above are specifically about supporters--Egghead06 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops... My apologies, I clearly didn't read the initial question properly. I have now...

Think the general point still applies, all the same: the person concerned should be well-publicised as a supporter of the club and sourced as such, and the content shouldn't be just an unexplained list of anyone an editor can associate with the club. For instance, one of the names on the Celtic list was Susan Boyle. I don't know if she supports the club or not, but the cited tabloid source just has her having a wardrobe malfunction when she did the half-time draw at a Celtic match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, any club with famous fans should have them discussed in sourced prose in the main body of the article outlining their connection to the club and using the sources to demonstrate why their association is noteworthy when considering the club as the article subject (for example, have they been a major benefactor to the club?) Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, add it to the person's article. The club is not a celebrity show. SLBedit (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter - apparent resignation

It would seem Sepp Blatter has resigned or is about to resign. Some eyes may be needed on related pages. Hack (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ding, dong, the witch is dead! Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't stand falling down! —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Football Conference division re-naming

As you are probably aware, the Football Conference is to be renamed the National League from next season. Now, as far as I can see, the name of the top division (currently Conference Premier) will be simply the "National League", but the "umbrella" name for all three divisions will also be "National League", rather bizarrely. Currently we have the separate articles Football Conference and Conference Premier. We can't rename them both to "National League" so how to proceed...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As I suggested at Talk:Conference North#Requested move 31 May 2015, I think merging them all into a single article would be the best approach. We cover the three divisions of the Isthmian League and Southern Football League in a single article, so I see no reason this can't be done. Much of the articles are tables and maps that could be combined or shifted to the individual season articles. Number 57 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A merge may be a good idea. The three league articles could be merged into the umbrella article under the title National League (association football) to distinguish it from baseball's National League. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Would support a merge but I suggest sorting the rename first. I've suggested National League (English football) as both more distinct and natural. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football club

I need your input to clear a doubt. SLBedit (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No concensus yet. SLBedit (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

James Milner

Could an Admin please semi protect James Milner... all going a bit mad at the moment... JMHamo (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal FC

We had a dispute between my version 664996810 and Footballistically's version 665000658. We discussed it on the talk page and I produced version 665016371, which Footballistically thanked me for. The Rambling Man then saw me editing another football intro as a by-product of said discussion, saw there was also an Arsenal FC edit of a +1,097 byte change, assumed I was generally wreaking chaos, and took Arsenal FC back to Footballistically's version 665000658. When I pointed out to TRM that Foot's version wasn't the version before Foot's and my dispute, it was actually an edited version of a much older version, and had thrown away some text added in over the months (Foot's edit was -1,107 bytes), TRM realized he was in a complicated situation, and, somewhat arbitrarily, fixed it at a version with some of my changes and none of Foot's. I have ended up having to do a Minor Edit to take out some of the style errors Foot and I had discussed, but we're left with a bit of bureaucratic botch. Does anyone have a problem with me bringing in the last changes from 665016371? At this point, it's only two sentences that are different, and the wording admittedly wasn't great. Madshurtie (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If a football club "are" plural, "they play". If a football club "is" singular, "it plays". Who gets to decide this? SLBedit (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A football club as an entity "is" singular, but its team is plural. So "Arsenal Football Club is an English football club", it was founded in whenever; but Arsenal play in the Premier League and have won umpteen FA Cups. The section English plurals#Singulars with collective meaning treated as plural refers to it: back when that section was headed Discretionary plurals, the wording was probably clearer. It can be controversial, because it's a subtle distinction and one that some people don't accept, and it can be advisable to structure a sentence to avoid the problem... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) @SLBedit: In British English, organisations are frequently referred to in the plural, even when using singular nouns. This can mean that words like "club" can be treated as plurals when it comes to conjugating the verb, for instance "The club play at the 12,000-capacity Roots Hall". Number 57 10:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: Manchester United F.C.'s lead is incorrect then. SLBedit (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: You and Struway2 are contradicting each other. Most articles about Premier League clubs refer to entity in plural form. Another question: Does this 'singular vs plural' thing apply to sports clubs? SLBedit (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: It refers to all organisations that consist of multiple people. TBH, it would also probably be applied to a one-person company, if the company was being referred to rather than the person. Re the contradiction, note that I said "can be treated as plurals" and not "always are treated as plurals". Number 57 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered about singular/plural with clubs. I merely tried to standardize it because the article was inconsistent. Plural seemed the more obvious choice because it appeared more in the article and appears to be the standard among British Newspapers. I will create a general section about this, because it doesn't just pertain to Arsenal FC or these edits. Madshurtie (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, I saw a clear edit war at the Arsenal article which started to spill over to other club articles as one editor tried to enforce their own approach to the lead over that which existed, without a consensus to make such wide-ranging changes. I have restored the Arsenal article to the pre-war status and look forward to the lively debate here and probably elsewhere on the best way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like The Rambling Man still isn't quite clear on what happened. When he saw the 'clear edit war', he thought I was making massive changes because my version was very different from Footballistically's. Hence why he said things like 'stop making wholesale project-wide changes without consensus', 'making such big changes to such a long-standing article', 'It's a huge change to a featured article. I oppose your change until such a time that we can get views in from others to assess your proposal.', and now says 'tried to enforce their own approach to the lead over that which existed, without a consensus to make such wide-ranging changes'. He is correct that it spilt over to three other articles, where I was genuinely guilty of substantial intro rewrites. But it seems like this affected his perception of my edits to Arsenal FC. What he didn't immediately realize was that Footballistically's version wasn't the pre-existing version. It was an edited version of a several months/years old version, which lost a lot of text. Hence why, when I pointed this out to TRM, TRM reverted to what he calls the 'pre-war status', which is actually very similar to my newest version. Why he's still talking about 'such wide-ranging changes', I am not entirely sure. As far as I can tell, the only substantial differences are these two sentences:

1 (reverted version) - Arsenal are one of the most supported,[2] valuable,[3] and lucrative[4] football clubs in the world, boasting the third most Twitter followers[5] and the second highest earning stadium.[4]

1 (my version) - Arsenal are one of the world's most supported clubs, quantified by a social media following that includes the third most Twitter followers.[7][8] They are also one of the most valuable, at $1.3 billion, according to Forbes,[9] and one of the highest earning, with the second highest matchday revenue.[10]

2 (reverted version) - The latter includes the only completely unbeaten season since the 16 match-shorter inaugural Football League season saw Preston North End do it 115 years before.

2 (my version) - The latter includes the only completely unbeaten season since the Football League's 16 match-shorter inaugural season 115 years before.

Changing the first sentence was an attempt to make the intro more WP:NPOV and make the relevance of Twitter clearer. Changing the second was to make the sentence less run-on and clearer. Both, incidentally, were responses to comments by Footballistically.

Madshurtie (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Twitter doesn't mean anything. SLBedit (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, featured articles have to comply with a number of criteria, one of which is clear literate prose and another is the requirements of WP:LEAD, which says that the lead section has to introduce the article as a whole, sum up its important points, and be written from a neutral point of view. The current version (and various of the recently added versions) is heavy on listy statistical detail, some of which is pretty trivial and sounds boastful for the sake of it, e.g. "have accumulated both the second most wins and points, and would be placed first in an aggregated league of the entire 20th century", and doesn't mention that they play at the Emirates Stadium or in red and white. I'd be tempted to go back to something like the structure of the lead section as at January 2010 after the featured article review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You made a lot of good contributions to it around that time, Struway2, and there's some valuable stuff in the Jan 2010 340747304 version. As you say, the shirt colours and Emirates Stadium seem to have been lost, which is a shame. However, some bits of that version are regressions that I don't think we'd want to bring back:

• 'successful' is less precise than 'decorated'
• the history summary makes the lean trophy period appear to be between the 50s and 1970, when there was an equally important one from 71 to the 90s
• the number of fans isn't cited, and fan estimates are horrendously unreliable, hence why social media numbers are used in the current version
• the Forbes valuation is a bit of guess really, it should be explicitly attributed to them rather than being made to seem official
• is the British culture bit relevant? (I'm open to persuasion about this)
• I'm not sure whether Arsenal Ladies should be in the intro for what's essentially a separate club

As for the statistical detail, I actually think it's worthwhile:

• All the club articles 'boast' accomplishments; the whole point of the intro is notable things about the clubs. Chelsea FC, in particular, lists a lot of minor or obsolete trophies. Long-term records from the entire history of the clubs are genuine accomplishments.
• Trophies only reflect wins and draws within specific start/end dates under specific rules. It's somewhat arbitrary awarding the team who accumulates the most three points wins and one point draws between Aug/May. They ignore achievements smoothed over long periods, which may be equally impressive.
• Successful tennis and chess player articles often have several stats in the intro (and ELO rankings are widely followed in chess). If they are actual accomplishments, football can too.
• The Arsenal article has had the uninterrupted top flight stat and the Invincibles stat from way before 2010. Why is longest period more notable than second most points? Why is the unbeaten steak more notable than the win streak?
• If you look here, for example, arsenal actually have a large number of listed records. There are enough notable ones for the separate intro section to stand.

I actually think more football articles deserve records in the intro, and had tried to mention the 2004-05 season on Chelsea FC and the most wins and points on Liverpool FC. The changes were undone because I tried to change too much else, but I still think the two clubs deserve them.

Madshurtie (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand my position a little. I hold no brief for the wording of the 2010 lead section: I didn't write it and hardly copyedited it at the time of the FARC, and any edits I made to the article at that time were to make it comply with what the FARC reviewers needed. Its structure did meet the then requirements of WP:LEAD in terms of introducing the article, acting as a stand-alone summary of the article's content, and neutrality.

In general, I prefer "your" version of the lead to the one reverted to, and you're correct that the financial stuff should be attributed. But the statistical stuff (which is present in both) has too much precise detail. Even if it were important to tell the reader right at the top that Arsenal currently hold a record for the longest winning streak (what in?), it certainly isn't important to tell them that it's 14. What makes the Invincible stat more important than a win streak is that it's regularly discussed in mainstream media: the pure "statistical feats" aren't.

I also don't think that having more players die in the Second World War than any other (English League? English? British? any?) club is relevant to an overview – only Herbie Roberts had been a regular, and he'd retired: the others had one first-team appearance between them – and the war putting an end to the successes of the 1930s isn't backed up by the article content: "As key players retired, Arsenal had started to fade by the decade's end". I don't know enough about Arsenal's history to comment on the chronology, but if managers are to be mentioned, I'd be surprised to see Graham and not Chapman.

In terms of WP:MOS, there's an awful lot of blue: might be worth checking out WP:LINK. And once a consensus forms as to what gets included, might be an idea to get a copyedit to tighten up the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would always lean towards using the singular when referring to the club as an off-the-field organisation and the plural when referring to the on-field team. For me, "the club were founded" just sounds completely wrong. I doubt anyone would say, for example, "the Ford Motor Company were founded"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New football related articles

Hi, can someone take a look at the articles created by Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs). They are all unsourced, some is clubs and some is players (I think). Are they notable? Should some be deleted? Appreciate if anyone has the time to look at them. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh heavens, Most Trophies in European football definitely has to go.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I added some sources to the Spanish footballer articles they created, but I copied the sources from the Spanish Wiki articles, so don't know what they say. Also, Most Trophies in European football has been deleted/redirected. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And these Levski Ruse, Bukarester FC, Mureşul Târgu Mureş, Ramón Polo Pardo, Joaquín Murillo, Juan Araújo. SLBedit (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil Taylor (footballer)

Taylor was suspended when Swansea won the 2011 Football League Championship play-off Final. Does this go in his honours, because he played the semi? '''tAD''' (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source confirming he won the honour, no mention. GiantSnowman 17:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: There's also a debate below about if winning a playoff final is a notable enough honour. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Player rejoining club after leaving them... but he did not play with anyone in between.

I know this has already been done before and I have seen what was done at Carlton Cole but I just want to clarify. Nicolas Anelka might sign for Mumbai City FC again after playing with them last season. After he left them he was a free agent, out of contract, and went to Algeria but the move never happened. He has since not played anywhere and again, will soon re-sign with MCFC... in the infobox, should I add Mumbai City FC again or should I just change "2014" to "2014–"? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems similar to the situation with Paul Scholes. Separate lines for separate spells, IMO. – PeeJay 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nikola Zigic is yet another example of the status quo. I think the standard way of doing things is this; if someone leaves in June at the end of their previous contract (for example), but rejoins before the new season starts, it is one spell. If they rejoin after the next season has started, it's a second spell. This is based on what is done with the aforementioned articles, and Stuart Taylor (footballer, born 1980), who was released by Man City and then resigned 9 days later. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But this is slightly different. The ISL season finished in December and does not kick-off again till October! He has been a free agent since 21 December 2014, almost 5 months now. I understand if he is a free agent and then signs within a transfer window but this is practically two windows! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, I say it should be separate lines. – PeeJay 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed - if you leave a club and come back then you have separate lines in the infobox as they are separate spells (see also Jason Scotland). GiantSnowman 12:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For me it should be separate lines as there has been a significant period of time in between the two spells, it's not like there has been a couple of days between the two spells like with Stuart Taylor at Man City. IJA (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is if there were no competitive matches between the two spells (like they left in June, rejoined in early August), then it should be 1 spell, but if they've missed competitive matches by not being at the club, it should be 2 spells. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Two spells. SLBedit (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If Anelka isn't retired why infobox shows career totals? SLBedit (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

one more question about this then please..whats about career statistics ?should we also have the stats separated in career statistics as Didier Drogba or one section as in Rafinha ?? and if it's as the latter , should we move celta above barca stats? since it would make more sense to put the last year as the last line at the table ? thank you. Adnan (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Group Results Tables

It's awfully confusing to see "Advance to knockout stage" when that hasn't happened yet. Can't this go back to the old way?--Smarkflea (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smarkflea: This is the way we have always shown qualifications in League table and with the new module it is now also done in tournaments and other tables for consistency. Also we should not only have colors without text as some reader may be colorblind so we have that extra row. When a team actually has qualified a statusletter is added. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Football", "association football" or "soccer"

Assuming all of these recent edits by Rodre1 were made in good faith, the articles now link to football which is a more general article than soccer. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, there's really no need to change the link since "soccer" is a direct redirect to Association football. If the preferred term (outside of the the U.S., etc.) is "football", then I guess a pipe could be made like [[Association football|football]], but that seems a bit forced. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? Simple reverting back to "soccer", changing to "association football" or piping using "football"? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these changes were to Australian articles. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), association football should be referred to as soccer. Hack (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If Australian articles are supposed to display 'soccer', that's fine, but the links should always be to association football. – PeeJay 10:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone's already reverted them all, and left a note at the editor's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. FWIW, "soccer" redirects to "association football", so there is no "soccer" article per se. I saw that all those edits were all reverted. Somebody went on quite an editing binge: Account was dormant for 4+ years, then suddenly 100+ edits changing "soccer" to "football" in a little over 2 hours. Wonder if it's the full moon? - Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why but as soon as I saw this section being edited on my watchlist, I knew, I just knew, that it would be about Australia. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Same. Most places have a fairly well established consensus, even for those countries that use soccer primarily. But for whatever reason, Australia has always been a little awkward. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on my forays into Aussie soccer forums, they're very awkward over a lot of things when it comes to the game. Whether it is how the league is, to simply the name of the sport. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that most younger fans call the sport football, while older fans and pretty much everyone else calls it soccer. Anyway, it's a pretty petty thing to be warring over on the Wikipedia. 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> FWIW, I almost always link [[soccer|football]] on the grounds that it's much quicker than writing [[association football|football]]. Is there any reason that I shouldn't be doing that? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess it would be better than linking to [[football]] Hack (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're basically creating a double redirect. Not technically, but in the eyes of the user. User clicks on "football", expects to end up at page title "football", but instead ends up at page titled "association football" with a note that he has been redirected from "soccer". This is frowned upon, to say the least. Madcynic (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Introduction: country of birth when whole career is in another country

John Doe, born in the United States, has played football his whole life (including youth years) in Australia. He will not continue his career as a manager in the United States. Should the introduction say "American footballer", "American-born Australian footballer" or simply "Australian footballer"? Country of birth is in the infobox and included in categories.--Zoupan 17:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the fact that he was born in the United States relevant in any way to his notability? If not, manual of style says at WP:BIRTHPLACE and WP:OPENPARA that it should be "Australian footballer", perhaps with the specific birthplace at the start of the second sentence to deter people who would think it correct to add "American-born" (for example, "John Doe is an Australian footballer who plays for Newcastle United Jets as a defender. Born in Salt Lake City, Utah, US, he started his career with Melbourne Heart ...).

Other potential factors: Has he played for Australia? If yes, the descriptor "Australian international footballer" is perhaps superior as it removes any ambiguity. Regarding wording, categories, consider his personal background (was he born in the US to Australian parents, or to American parents who emigrated to Australia when he was a boy? Or some other situation?) The Owen Hargreaves article is a good example in my opinion for this kind of thing. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not for this case, because Hargreaves represented England so he is without doubts an English footballer, but the case is when footballers did not represent any country internationally. FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the article in question: Ermin Melunović (see edit history of article to see Zoupan edits). A player born in Serbia and with sources in the article clearly saying he is Serbian. The fact that he played in Austria and Germany doesn't really matter in my view. FkpCascais (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You ignored the whole first half of my post. WP:OPENPARA. Is his birth in Serbia at all relevant to his notability? Is he even a Serbian citizen? —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No I didn't. We have 2 sources, both saying he is Serbian. What is confusing there? Born in Serbia, sources say Serbian. If we had some conflicting information (different birthplace, contradicting sources, etc.) then we would have a case. But the only reason being that he played in Austria and Germany? That is very much normal today, sportspeople exercise their sports in different countries, but that doesn't mean they loose their identity. Playing in Austrian clubs doesn't mean he is Austrian footballer. If he played for Austrian national team at some level, then OK, he would be Austrian, but this is not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that we lack the sources to say he is anything other than Serbian, so I suppose in the circumstances we must yield to that. How about the opening descriptor "Serbian former football player who spent his entire professional career in Germany"? Is this okay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that would be ideal. Just a minor remark, he played in Austria at beginning of his career. FkpCascais (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he was a professional then though, was he? Just a youth player. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He did played as senior in Austria between 1992 and 1995 (not a good source but usefull for further search). I confirmed he played as senior for Gars/Kamp in the 1993/94 season and even scored 24 goals for them in the league (Club website, see respective season). He was born in 1973, and he only came to Germany in 1995, already being 22 and certainly with 4-5 seasons as senior. Here is another source this one from FSV Mainz 05 website. It confirms his early clubs in Austria, all but the season I found in the previous source. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, he was even part of Kremser SC in their Austrian Bundesliga season in 1991/92 but hasn't played, but was part of the squad, see here. This source is quite complete and usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Will you oppose me to slightly expand and complete his career with the sources I found? Anyway, I think this thread was really not opened because of this specific player (before this I didn't even knew about him), but the bottom line Zoupan brought here was regarding the nationality and how much exercicing a profession abroad makes one become that nations craftsman (in this case German footballer, or in this another case involving same editor, a Serbian/German actor). In my view, people may perfectly well do their professions outside without that making them loose their ariginal nationality. Unless, of course, in case of sportsman, they don't represent another country. I think this was about to be the original discussion, but ended up making Ermin Melunović a better article, just by chance :D FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about a specific article, but to a specific issue, which is widespread in WP:FOOTY. John Doe has not played for the Australian football team.--Zoupan 10:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Joe Doe can be an Australian footballer despite having had his entire career abroad and never having played in Australia. The clubs and league doesn't affect players nationality despite the number of years that he might have played abroad or even if he never played in any club in his home country. Can I ask please inputs if I am right about this or if Zoupan is right? FkpCascais (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A good example here is Simeon Jackson, who was born in Jamaica, played all his football in England and Germany, but plays for Canada national team. The lead is "Simeon Alexander Jackson (born 28 March 1987) is a Canadian international soccer player who plays for Coventry City. He has spent the majority of his career playing in England", which is a good way of phrasing it IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, but for the dispute between Zoupan and me, it would be helpful to use players which didn't played for any national team. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day it comes down to the sources we have available. If we have a multitude of sources confirming that John Doe has lived in Australia since the age of 2, played for Australian teams, identifies as Australian etc then that is one thing; if on the other hand the only sources we have say only that he was born in the United States and give no real details regarding his links to Australia, then we must go with "American" or it's wp:original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But that is not the case. The club website usually states the nationality of the player because it matters to them for the "domestic/foreign" reason, so the nationality there is not just merely a place of birth. The bottom line is that Zoupan beleaves that certain amount of time spent in clubs of X country should make us say that the player is Xian footballer. I disagree. Where do we put a division line? 6 seasons, 8 seasons, 10 seasons? That is not at all usual in footballers. What matters is the nationality and national team a player represents. The country of the clubs where he plays is mostly irrelevant. For instance, Nnaemeka Ajuru played 11 seasons in Serbia and one in Georgia, but he is always Nigerian footballer no matter where he plays. He is not Serbian footballer just because he plays in Serbian league, that would be WO:OR without doubts. In Portugal there are African footballers that spent their entire creers in Portugal and abroad, and they are still Senegalese, Angolan, Liberian, etc. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Ermin Melunović - both sources say he is Serbian. What is the issue here? No indication he has Austrian/German nationality at all. GiantSnowman 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. However, Zoupan raised this and this (see more at bottom of section) issue. He thinks that the amount of time spent in a country abroad, and if he didnt played in a club in his own country, should affect that. I disagree. FkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan unfortunately has an opinion that is not based in policy, consensus, or even basic common sense. GiantSnowman 18:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

Benfica have announced they will not renew contract with Jorge Jesus but they also said that the contract is valid until 30 June 2015. I have removed Jesus from several Benfica articles but maybe I should wait until 30 June? SLBedit (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: He should be considered a Benfica player until his contract runs out, so should still be in Benfica articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay (he is the coach). SLBedit (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In which case, he should be considered a Benfica coach until his contract runs out. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although the season is over. May I change "2014–" to "2014–2015" since we know contract will end? SLBedit (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is official I would say 2014-15 since the club made it official about when the contract going to be ended Adnan (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be not to change it until they actually leave, they could change their decision, like Dick Advocaat did (he quit a month ago, and then came back). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph2302; do not change until the event actually happens per WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sporting announced Jesus as coach but said he will be presented on 1 July. Is he still Benfica coach until 30 June or not? SLBedit (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is. GiantSnowman 07:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the whole Portuguese media he is not Benfica coach anymore. SLBedit (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace in infoboxes

I want to bring here and discuss this and this edits. Generally there has been a long standing agreement on Yugoslavia-born footballers to avoid complicating things in infobox and to put only city plus country of birth in the infobox (country at time of birth obviously). So that would mean in this case we would have only "Strumica, SFR Yugoslavia" in the infobox, and then more details if needed in the article body.

However, even within football biographies we have inconsistencies regarding this issue, as for instance, it is not unusual to see footballers born in Soviet Union, United States or Canada, include the intermediate administrative divisions between the city and country in infobox (for exemple Matt Dunn (soccer) which says "Dallas, Texas, United States").

Then we have a different issue, which is adding the "X City, Xland (now Yland)" formula as in this edit. The current country mentioned within parentheses is really rare, unusual and avoided in football biographies, however it s not that rare in other type of biographies.

So we have the following options for infobox, I will be using the exemple of Ljubljana, part of Yugoslavia till 1992, and since then capital of Slovenia, and if the player is born lets say in 1982:

A) to have simply city and country at time of birth, exemple "Ljubljana, SFR Yugoslavia".

B) to have included the intermediate administrative units, exemple "Ljubljana, SR Slovenia, SFR Yugoslavia"

C) to have the indication of nowadays country without intermediate units, exemple "Ljubljana, SFR Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)"

D) to have the nowadays country including the intermediate unit, exemple "Ljubljana, SR Slovenia, SFR Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)"

The option D looks obviously an overkill to me, but what you all think about this issue? This obviously applies only to footballers born in former countries, and in countries of federative style. I would like to invite all so we could archive consensus. Also, if this was discussed recently ad I missed it, can someone please point me out the discussion and its outcome. Thanks to all. FkpCascais (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the present-day place mentioned in parentheses in various biography articles, like Mother Teresa. I'm not sure that football player articles would be treated differently than other biography articles. --Local hero ^talk 00:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, option A is the most common method across Wikipedia (it's certainly not limited to football articles, and the Mother Teresa example (i.e. using parentheses) is extremely rare in my experience. However, there are certain problematic areas – for instance, a handful of Estonian editors have relentlessly edit warred to remove mention of the Soviet Union from the articles of anyone born in Estonia between 1940 and 1991. Personally option A seems like the obvious choice, as the alternative options inevitably lead to nationalistic disputes etc. Number 57 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that A is preferred; B is also acceptable; C and D should never be used. GiantSnowman 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I remember those editors making problems with Estonia -_- ... However, is this thread enough for claiming consensus? I appreciate very much your inputs Local hero, Number 57 and GS, thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem of those Estonian editors is still ongoing, by the way... Jared Preston (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with option A being the best option, if that helps with your consensus. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely A. Think of "Ljubljana, SFR Yugoslavia (now China)", the new country would not matter. SLBedit (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jared Preston I know. The Estonian editors are taking advantage because no consensus was reached at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles so there is a constant edit-war with them claiming Baltic states were occupied by USSR, had governments in exile, and as such they existed as independent troughout all that period. I personally don't have a dog in it, but an occupation lasting half a century is hard to ignore, people were indeed born in the Soviet Estonian SSR, weather someone personally likes it, or not.

Struway2 of course it helps, there are often edit-wars regarding this silly issue, so having one discussion to point out and solve the dispute helps A LOT. Thank you, and thank you SLBedit as well. Cheers! FkpCascais (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• C is the best option. I do not understand why the current state "should never be used" when the lifetime of persons exceeds the historical state. Yugoslav and Soviet republics correspond to modern-day republics (SR Slovenia→Slovenia, Estonian SSR→Estonia).--Zoupan 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A personal question to you: what will you put in parenthesis if a player was born in Pristina? (now what country?). See the potential for endless edit-conflict there? FkpCascais (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo with the annotation, as common practice. Why would this result in edit-conflicting?--Zoupan 10:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely that would only be the case if a player was born in Pristina after the Kosovo declaration of independence (2008, so I doubt we have one)? Otherwise, Pristina is historically as Serbia-Montenegro as Podgorica, and as historically Yugoslavia as Skopje or Ljubljana. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody know Turkish?

I added the officials to the 2015 UEFA Champions League Final, but as the Turkish language uses diacritic marks not regularly seen in the English press (i.e. Hakan Şükür not Hakan Sukur, Tuncay Şanlı not Tuncay Sanli, and İlkay Gündoğan not Ilkay Gundogan) the names may be written wrong. Does anybody here know enough to fix it? '''tAD''' (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Did it myself '''tAD''' (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to sign up

I am a definite sportsnerd, and I would like to join the sports contribution, i would love to edit articles and remove vandalism. If i can join, let me know at my Usertalk:TheSoccerBoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoccerBoy (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruno Pesaola

I almost finished to update his article on it.wikipedia, now is 37kb+ and 86 references, if you want start to translate is of course okay.. somebody lives near Cunard Line HQ? I need informations we can find only there about another Società Sportiva Calcio Napoli legend.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work on the Italian article, I've added a tag to the English article saying it can be expanded from the Italian one- hopefully someone here is fluent in Italian and can do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you very much :)! There are some minor errors actually on the en.wiki article, he never managed Puteoloana and he he coached Savoia, as the italian article says :).. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Season article notability question

As I've noticed, season articles should only be used for clubs playing in leagues that confer player notability (i.e. fully pro or top flight). However, I'm not sure what to do with the link to the previous season which would be red for clubs that were just promoted to the appropriate league. Unlink it? Is the season they won promotion notable? Is any season notable, now that they play in a fully pro league? Anyone? Madcynic (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

De-link it unless it possibly meets WP:NSEASONS / WP:GNG; if it is a notable season which simply hasn't been created yet then the redlink should remain per WP:REDDEAL. GiantSnowman 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Players articles lay out :

I have a question please , is there a standard way of listing players articles ? like Career statistics and honors at the end? I just used probably the most complete players article on wikipedia as an example : Lionel Messi & Cristiano Ronaldo not just to follow them blindly.. I just used them because they are well written and organized and both have many people who are watching this articles so it means most people on some kind of agreement how the lay out of this article should be I thought.. but this user @PhilStar01: not just ignored my invite to discuss and kept changing stuff after I asked him to discuss it, he also changed the lay out for as example as Jordi Masip(he did this to like all Barca players) , not that's only he added all runners up for Spanish supercups and UEFA supercup as an example for honors..how can this be an honor? it is a match between two teams..one of them gotta be 2nd ! it doesn't make any sense at all.. So can you please tell me about these two points please guys :)Adnan (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC) .

Honours section should be placed at the bottom, usually after career statistics. SLBedit (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: yes second place in a final is considered an honour, you shouldn't remove them if they are sourced. (Above there's a discussion about league runners-up.) SLBedit (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I've read it my friend but it seems there is no consensus about it.. I am talking about 2nd places in competitions such as Spanish supercups and UEFA Super Cup. the whole competition is between two teams, one win and the another team lose, I never seen the loser team at these competitions receive an honor did anyone see it? and since you mentioned it should be provided with reliable source..any reliable source for Spanish or European clubs competitions says the second place receive any honors? because if someone says It counts , they should provide the source and if they can't bring it then they should't be counted Adnan (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The "loser team" may receive medals too. I have seen it in Portuguese league cup. SLBedit (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

My friend SLBedit , found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players , but it doesn't mention anything about personal life...so can we update this then ?? where do you guys suggest we should put personal life at this ?? at the end ?? or like after football ? thank you Adnan (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo it comes before "Career statistics". We need input from other users. SLBedit (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Far as I can tell 'personal life' always goes before 'Statistics' and 'Honours'. I suppose the rationale is that personal life is text whereas statistics and honours are lists of data, which are best suited to the end of an article.--EchetusXe 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with EchetusXe. GiantSnowman 18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both EchetusXe and giant about where we should place it :) Adnan (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Similar point of discussion: International goals tables go in international career or statistics? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say statistics, because as what EchetusXe and Giant had said, I think it makes sense to leave all numbers and stats to the bottom. some people don't care about stats so putting texts above makes sense. and it is already mentioned above how many goals internationally player has scoredAdnan (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all stats (career appearances, international goals) should all be kept in the 'Statistics' section. GiantSnowman 17:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Transfermarkt fanatics

I just thought of bringing this edit here. What you fellows think, promising new editor or not? FkpCascais (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice guy, definitely. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked. FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Player "known simply as"

Should we use "known simply as" in the introduction when a player is known only by his first name? SLBedit (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Something like "known simply as", "known as" or "commonly known as"- all of these are used on Wikipedia, for example Pelé and Ronaldo. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"commonly known as" is the usual approach I believe. Number 57 18:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be in keeping with the "common" element of WP:COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it: John Doe known simply as John (first name); John Doe commonly known as Doe (surname); John Doe known as Anonymous (other name). SLBedit (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Mostly used in players coming from Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries, where the fullname (usually composed of two names and two surnames) is added at the beginning, and the commonname next. FkpCascais (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think that the commonname is the one that should be added in the defaultsort of those players, but further opinion on this claim of mine would be welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "known as" simply for the brevity. Hack (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Trophée des Champions

This is the French equivalent of the Community Shield. The article lists the competition as starting in 1995 (as was its first in the current name), but all the statistics include previous similar tournaments. Should these be listed seperately/discounted from statistics, or kept and change the date of commencement to 1949? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The question essentially, if I understand it correctly, boils down to this: do we decide that both the 1949 super cup-style play-off game and the two spells of the Challenge des Champions are the same tournament as the Trophée des Champions? If we say 'yes' as the rest of the article seems to, we say 1949. If we say only Le Challenge is the same tournament (with the '49 match a forerunner), then we put 1955. If we say 'no' and decide that the '95 launch after the nine-year hiatus was a new competition, then 1995 should stay. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What the sources say. That is for example, was Marseille in 2011 credited with their 3rd or 2nd title? -08:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Season for a Supercup

Which season should the domestic Supercup belong to? I know the most common case is when 2012-13 League champion and 2012-13 Cup winner play the Supercup (2013 Supercup) at the very beginning of 2013-14 season, and it's usually attached to 2013-14 season in the infoboxes.

There is however a totally different schedule exists for Belarusian competitions, which I maintain. In Belarus, a 2014 Supercup is played between the winner 2012-13 Cup and 2013 League (which technically belongs to 2013-14 season). This supercup is played in spring 2014, before the start of 2014 League (in the middle of 2013-14 European season).

All years/seasons given just as examples. Your input is welcomed. -BlameRuiner (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say include it in the current season, given the premise is last season's winners competing... GiantSnowman 11:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In your example, I would say that the Belarusian supercup is part of the 2014 Belarusian football season, and the 2013-14 European football season. Standard practice doesn't change here, it's just that the 'European' and Belarusian seasons don't match up (as in Norway, Sweden, Ireland). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully Professional League?

I was wanting to create pages for all Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina players with out a page but I'm not completely sure it it meets the guideline of being fully professional WP:FPL. If it is please inform me. Thank you. Da Drewster (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:FPL#Top level leagues which are not fully professional, the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a fully-professional league. Therefore it's likely most of the players playing in there won't be consider notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joseph2302 I didn't see any mentioning of it being fully pro in the main article and not in the WP:FPL either so i thought it may not have been added yet. Da Drewster (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You can make pages for those players that have appearances in some pro league. There are many players there that at some point of their career played in the top leagues of Serbia and Croatia which are pro, or others from the list. FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template or (Spanish)?

What should we use? {{es icon}} or (Spanish)? Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Already got the answer from: WP:LINK, thank you. ("When using one of the above templates in references that use a {{cite}} template, make sure you place the {{XX icon}} template outside of the {{cite}} template, like this: <ref>{{cite web ...}}{{es icon}}</ref>") MYS77 ^✉ 20:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In most 'cite' templates, there's usually a |language= parameter where you can add the language of the source in plain text. I find this is better than putting multiple templates in a single ref tag. – PeeJay 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant when we use the: <ref>[]</ref>, we add the {{es icon}} instead of an ugly (Spanish), right? MYS77 ^✉ 20:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"(Spanish)" or "(in Spanish)" is a workaround to make it look like {{cite web}}'s language=. if you use cite web use the parameter for the language, ie language=Spanish. How is it "ugly" if it's what is used in references? {{es icon}} is for External links... SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone who's not involved with some interests (i.e. this and this edits) answer this? Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox football biography}} does not include spaces. SLBedit (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not even a question for WP:FOOTY. SLBedit (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem began in the article of a footballer (Quique Flores), so we are trying to solve it in a place to discuss about football, Mr. SLBedit. I'm politely asking for the guidance of somebody who isn't involved with the page, which you are involved. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're using {{cite web}}, then use the |language= parameter. If you're hand-coding, then it doesn't matter, so long as the style is consistent throughout the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as both PeeJay and Struway2 have said we should be using proper cite templates with the |language= parameter. GiantSnowman 11:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Honours section

This is a debate that came up for me last night with @JOESPICE:, so I'm going to try to get a consensus here. Does winning a playoff final, for example Football League Championship play-offs or the Scottish equivalent, count as a honour that should be added to the honours section?

My view is no, because it's a honour for coming 3rd/4th in a League- considering coming second isn't classed as an honour, doing worse and scraping a promotion through a second-chance tournament is not a substantial achievement.

@JOESPICE:'s conflicting view on the matter was "On the issue of a football "honour", it is merely a prize of winning a competition and/or receiving a medal for one and also individual prizes like "player of the year". Football league play-offs in Scotland and England and even if the winners are only surviving relegation, they are still a competition." (copied from my talkpage) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Second, third or fourth place in a league is not an honour. SLBedit (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• This was something I was unsure about as well. But if coming second is not going to count, then there's no way that winning the playoffs can be considered an honour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Winning a promotion or relegation playoff is not an honour in my book. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There's never been a consensus that second place in a league doesn't count. Some editors have strong opinions on that, but they've never managed to convince enough others to make it a fact, one major reason being that most reliable sources do consider it an honour. Personally, I don't consider winning a playoff an honour. An achievement, yes, but not an honour. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Second and third place should be treated as honour. Teams get medals for these. (In the top level leagues, of course).-BlameRuiner (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What leagues award medals for second and third place? Cup competitions may award silver medals to the team that loses the final, and on extremely rare occasions where there's a third place play-off there may be a bronze too, but that never happens in leagues. And getting a silver medal isn't an honour, as Struway says. It's an achievement, but it's little more than a consolation prize for the first of the losers. – PeeJay 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Struway didn't say coming second wasn't an honour. Struway said coming second was an honour, not only because of my personal opinion that it is, which obviously differs from your equally personal opinion on the matter, but because most reliable sources consider it to be one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I seem to have conflated it with your opinion on play-off wins. – PeeJay 14:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That may happen in international competitions but not in domestic leagues. SLBedit (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Personally I'd consider all runner-up positions and all promotions (but not necessarily all play-off wins eg Motherwell this season in the SPL is not an honour; but achieving promotion would have been for Rangers) as 'honours' in both league and cup competitions. However I think here it is the presence of independent reliable sources that we should go with, rather than opinions. Clubs seem split on the matter: when I google searched 'football club honours' I received Aston Villa, Reading and Everton who do list runners up placings and Aberdeen, Barcelona and Liverpool who don't. What does the eg Sky Sports Football Yearbook (Rothman's to me and you) list? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about 2nds or 3rds (personal opinion: these aren't honours) but playoffs quite often have trophies/medals/etc (Football League Championship play-offs definitely does) so for mine this is an honour, yes. Macosal (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sky Sports Yearbook lists wins and runners-up spots, but not promotions by any other method (3rd places or playoff wins). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's one reliable source of very, very many. The question for mine is "What is an honour?" The playoffs are competitions of their own, regardless of who does/doesn't qualify. The winners are presented with a trophy and medals after winning a match known as the "Final". If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Macosal (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Winning playoff promotion battle isn't an honor in my opinion, it is already doesn't make any sense for me to put the runner up of Spanish supercup as example as an honor since it is a battle of two teams only! so also for me winning playoff. Adnan (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Adnan completely. For one thing, I'm a Norwich fan, and am actively against Norwich players having it added to their articles, since it isn't actually notable enough an acheivement. Winning a league or cup is an honour, second in Premier League (or other top-division league) might be, apart from that, it's an achievement, but not a notable enough one. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I don't think the Rothman's yearbooks list honours on a player-by-player basis, only for clubs, and I don't think we can say it serves as a reliable source for what we do about listing players' honours. – PeeJay 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As to Rothman's, someone asked what it said, and having a copy readily accessible I answered them. I'm not aware of any source that specifically lists honours for players: the Hugman/PFA yearbooks don't. In the absence of RS for players, I'm not sure what you'd suggest other than by extension using RS for their clubs? If with reference to RS, we can conclude that a certain set of competition results are honours for clubs, then I don't see how we could then reasonably conclude that a different set should be honours for players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say we almost have to assume that the lists are different between players and clubs. If you assume a player won an honour just because he was at a club when they won it, you'd get some pretty silly examples. For example, when Man Utd won the Premier League and Champions League in 2008, you wouldn't say Richard Eckersley or Sam Hewson won either of those competitions, yet they were both part of the first team and had squad numbers for that season. – PeeJay 08:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. I must try and express myself more clearly. This discussion, as opposed to the one above, is about what constitutes an honour, not how the medals get allocated. What I failed to convey was if e.g. coming second in the league or winning the playoffs counted as an honour for any club doing so, then coming second in the league or winning the playoffs would count as an honour for any player doing so and satisfying the medal-allocation criteria (presumably the bit that I assumed to be understood as not part of this discussion and you apparently didn't). Therefore, if we agreed on what constituted RS for honours for clubs, those RS could quite happily be used for players as well, with the proviso that they had to satisfy any medal-allocation criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

My main concern with JOESPICE's edits was that he was mainly that his additions were unsourced, but also he was adding things like relegation play-offs which IMO should not be deemed to be a notable 'honour' in any sense. GiantSnowman 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As a general policy, I think that we can only go with relibale indepenent sources. In the UK I can only think of Rothman's/Sky Sports Yearbook as something which lists honours by club. If there are others in other countries, or others in the UK, then we could adapt. For now thought if this lists 1st and 2nds but not promotions/play-off wins then I'm happy to go with that. As per Struway, I don't see why that then can't be applied across to a player with PeeJay's note that we have to agree a level of involvement. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think what we define as an "honour" should be determined solely by the formatting of a single yearbook... Macosal (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - do you know any others? It's preferable to using one than just making it up ourselves. If there are any other yearbooks, gazeteers, etc then we should also look at them - as I stated above. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A promotion has got to be an honour. I cannot find a definition of what an honour is in these terms, but according to the dictionary it is a distinction, award, achievement. How is a promotion not considered one of these? The whole point of being in a league outside the Premier League is to gain promotion, that is the goal. Winning the divisional title is not the goal. A play-off promotion or runners-up promotion is considered equal to winning promotion as champions, there is barely any significance between first and second in these circumstances, it is like arguing over who finished 13th or 14th. It is an irrelevance, both teams have achieved their goal, the goal of promotion. An experienced manager of player boasts of or is revered for their list of promotions, we don't say "yeah but three of their promotions don't count because they only finished second". Are we saying Tony Pulis should have his honours list gutted? Taking Stoke out of the Championship should not be listed in his honours but winning a Premier League Manager of the Month award is worthy of inclusion? Football existed before 1992, the Premier League isn't everything. Can we have some common sense here please?--EchetusXe 10:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Common sense = Unsourced speculation. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The UK prison service have removed the railings on the top bunks in prisoners cells in a bid to make suicide by hanging more difficult. Some bureaucrat on £100,000 a year made that decision. I have a friend who is a solicitor who has made a lot of money recently suing the prison service after scores of prisoners have fallen out of bed breaking arms, jaws etc. I could buy a £1 can of cider for one of the alcoholics who congregate in my town centre, and they could have told me exactly why it would be a bad idea to remove the railings off to the top bunks in prisoner's cells. Common sense tends to go flying out the window in bureaucratic decisions however. Have promotions considered as an honour in player articles. Simple as that. Motherwell players do not get their play-off win counted as an honour. They did not get promoted. We don't have to go through this painful process of "Honours = getting a medal, oh but play-off winners get a medal but runners-up don't", "Rothmans source says its not an honour, oh wait it does, forget I said that, what about this other source" etc etc. If anybody finds a source that says promotions are not considered a footballing honour then please bring it to the table. Then we can revert "Honours" back to "Honours and achievements" and we can debate whether being a top-scorer for a club over the course of a season is considered an achievement and so on. Otherwise, forget it.--EchetusXe 11:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to include team achievements in player honours section in the first place? 14:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hugh McLeish

The article is a mess and I'm not talking about the ill-formatted infobox. The current version lists him as a goalkeeper born in Armadale who played for Celtic, Manchester United and Wimbledon etc. However, an old revision says he is a striker from Shotts who's exactly four years younger than currently stated and played for Dundee United, Sunderland, also Wimbledon among others. VEO^onefive 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The older version is real, I've gone back to that and cleaned it up a bit. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec)For info, nobody called McLeish has ever played as a goalie for Man U, Stockport, or Wimbledon.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

Alright so I've found pages where they haven't ever made a fully professional league appearance, but have made an appearance for a national team. Is this notable enough to not be contested for deletion? Da Drewster (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's the full national team, they are deemed notable. If it's youth teams, then probably not. Number 57 20:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright then. Thank you! Da Drewster (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

European Champion Clubs' Cup

Please control this page. This IP (and anothers) including Barcelona among the clubs to have keep the original trophy but it is false. According UEFA at page 7 of its official regulations (art. 5.1) "The original trophy, which is used for the official presentation ceremony at the final, remains in UEFA's keeping at all times." So, no club will keep permanently it, but will recieve a 100% scale replica. Also there are not articles about that in UEFA and Barcelona official websites.--190.238.175.216 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's World Cup article drive

As it kicked off on Saturday, how about making sure we have an article for all the players there? For Ecuador, only a single player has an article at the moment... Full list available at: 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup squads. FIFA profiles on them all here. Could be some interesting ones out there – I got a couple of DYKs during the last WC (Cecilia Santiago being the youngest goalkeeper at a World Cup and Aya Sameshima working at the Fukushima nuclear power plant whilst playing for the club they sponsored). Number 57 19:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a rather good idea and I would for sure support it and create articles for it as long as this meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. Da Drewster (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made a start with Tang Jiali and Lei Jiahui. Number 57 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done Ingrid Vidal, Colombia's most-capped player at this World Cup. – PeeJay 20:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done Yirlania Arroyo, one of Costa Rica's most capped players. It's surprising how difficult it is to find information about someone with 40 international caps! — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I know it's a bit out of date but a few less reds and oranges on the map would be good. Hack (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yah it's quite hart to find information about the players even the ones who have made lots of appearances. Also gonna start creating articles for Ecuador players that don't yet have a page. Da Drewster (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have done several articles and until the end of the tournament most of them should have an article already. Soccerway is also a good source for most of the players. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding 0 (0) for national teams in infobox

We had agreed long time ago not to do this edits in the infobox, right? Does anyone know the link to that rule or to the discussion where that was agreed? This reminded me about the need we have to have a quick access subpage in our project where these things would be written. FkpCascais (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like crystal ball territory. Hack (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that user will certainly ask me why... Would anyone oppose if I make an essay in a sandbox where all this little questions will be added, with links to discussions and reasons well explained? Then when over and brought here for you gentleman to see, it could be moved to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players/Frequent questions. So when each time some editor makes some of these basic mistakes, we will have a quick link to provide him so he will know why things are that way. FkpCascais (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I assume the player was added as they were called up to Albania squad? I see an international career starting when they play for the first time, not when they're called up for the first time. No evidence he'll play for Albania in 2015. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, he was called, so the editor is adding that in the infobox meaning he begin making part of Albanian national team. However, that is indeed a very usefull information for the article body, but in the infobox it would be better to add it only when one player actually makes the debut, because otherwise we risk having many players with 0 (0) infobox if they end up not being used. Also, I remember another strong argument for not adding 0 (0) was because that was basically only possible for players that play nowadays, but having the info of the first and last call for players, lets say, from the 1920s, would be much harder. So resumingly, it was agreed that the years in the infobox should reflect the first and last appearance, and not the first and last call, and in practice that means adding information only when the player debuts. FkpCascais (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Šerić was called up by both Australia and Croatia for the same match in 1998. He didn't play the game so would've been "0 (0)" for both teams. Hack (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! That is one great exemple for this case. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: we already have a 'FAQ', see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus. And yes, agreed that an international career starts when you make your first appearance, not when you are called up. GiantSnowman 11:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Toulon Tournament :

When I added to Claudio Marchisio earlier today Champions league squad of the season to his honors, I found Toulon Tournament at his international honors, Is this really consider an honor? or just friendly tournament so it doesn't matter ? and should I leave it or delete it ? thank you Adnan (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Remove it's unsourced. SLBedit (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the more relevant point here is that friendly tournaments should not go in honours sections (as I understand it). Macosal (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't find "friendly" in Toulon Tournament. SLBedit (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I could've been more specific. What I meant by that was that this tournament is based on arbitrary grounds/which teams are invited and as such is a friendly. I believe the consensus is to include tournaments run by FIFA, its Confederations or geographically defined subgroups of the Confederations. Macosal (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So should it be deleted then or left there ? Adnan (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been deleted already by someone (I think correctly). Macosal (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

cool , thank you Adnan (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:SLBedit "abusing" from the guidelines at Sergi Samper and Álex Grimaldo

The user mentioned above doesn't improve the pages (also mentioned), and keeps on saying that the Template:Infobox football biography has to be used in some certain way (I don't see it in its documentation). Also, he's adding social networking profiles to them.

Can someone please tell what's the right thing to do, or at least help me out here? He's stalking all my edits, as it seems.

Thank you all, MYS77 ^✉ 19:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't to want follow the guidelines. You don't own those and other articles. I have explained why a Facebook or Twitter link can be used when there is no personal website. Why did you call me a child? SLBedit (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not stalking anyone. An article can be edited by anyone. SLBedit (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Child, my friend, mate, are the same stuff. It is not an insult, so please don't make up one. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are nineteen years old and you called me a child. I am offended by it. SLBedit (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Oh, you are "offended"? Okay, then. I'm sorry, my dear friend. MYS77 ^✉ 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both of you need to cut this out immediately, it's getting ridiculous. MYS77, you need to stop being patronizing, and SLBedit, you need to stop following, or appearing to follow MYS77 around. Twitter and Facebook links generally shouldn't be used, but this is really not worth having a petty argument over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed; clear WP:LAME. GiantSnowman 19:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I helped Adnan_n2. I did not follow anyone.

"Links normally to be avoided" Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,"

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." Meets criteria. "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three." A blog and Twitter page can be added. SLBedit (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Luke and GS for your replies. MYS77 ^✉ 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@MYS77: Why do you revert me when I remove unnecessary spaces in infobox and make other minor changes? Why do you ignore the guidelines? SLBedit (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any specification over spacings, my friend SLBedit. I asked you to point me out where it was written that "we should have this amount of spaces" here and there, and you didn't provide me the answer. But anyway, the discussion is over for the good, the page stays as you like. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 19:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not how I like it's how it should be per template and WP:ELOFFICIAL. SLBedit (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor. First, let me make it clear: the spacing in the template does not matter. I promise. Period. Leave it alone. (Both of you.)

Second, unless you have a very specific reason to add the Twitter feed, leave it out. Note: "There is no official website, so I'm allowed" is not a specific reason. If you can say something about why it's important to include these specific Twitter feeds, and why they will help people looking for encyclopedic information about these footballers, then say it. Almost always, Twitter feeds do not provide encyclopedic information, they provide the tweeter's stream of consciousness. Rarely, there's an exception. Make your case, or leave the Twitter feed out. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good answer. Thanks, StevenJ81. MYS77 ^✉ 03:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Copa América

Recently an editor removed the "football box" templates for the Group stage games and replace them with standard wikicode tables that include a link to the match report on another wikipedia article.

Before the edit

11 June 2015 (2015-06-11)

20:30

Chile	Match 1	Ecuador
	Report

Estadio Nacional, Santiago

12 June 2015 (2015-06-12)

20:30

Mexico	Match 2	Bolivia
	Report

Estadio Sausalito, Viña del Mar

---

15 June 2015 (2015-06-15)

18:00

Ecuador	Match 7	Bolivia
	Report

Estadio Elías Figueroa, Valparaíso

15 June 2015 (2015-06-15)

20:30

Chile	Match 8	Mexico
	Report

Estadio Nacional, Santiago

---

19 June 2015 (2015-06-19)

18:00

Mexico	Match 13	Ecuador
	Report

Estadio El Teniente, Rancagua

19 June 2015 (2015-06-19)

20:30

Chile	Match 14	Bolivia
	Report

Estadio Nacional, Santiago

After the edit

11 June 2015
Chile	Match 1	Ecuador	Estadio Nacional, Santiago
12 June 2015
Mexico	Match 2	Bolivia	Estadio Sausalito, Viña del Mar
15 June 2015
Ecuador	Match 7	Bolivia	Estadio Elías Figueroa, Valparaíso
Chile	Match 8	Mexico	Estadio Nacional, Santiago
19 June 2015
Mexico	Match 13	Ecuador	Estadio El Teniente, Rancagua
Chile	Match 14	Bolivia	Estadio Nacional, Santiago

Is there a consensus for how it should be done? TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they're supposed to follow the templated way, that's kind-of why the template exists... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The footballbox with goalscorers can be seen at the group articles. This is how it has been done at 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup as an example. Qed237 (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at those. What concerned me was the loss of Microformat data when the template was replaced. The google search result currently displays the game on 24 June as the next to take place as a result. It's nothing major though. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re A-League transfers for 2015–16 season

Would really appreciate an extra opinion or two over at talk:A-League transfers for 2015–16 season re a number of issues on that page. At the moment it's a pretty circular discussion between me and one other (IP) editor so could hopefully add some clarity. It's a bit messy but happy to clear up anything which needs to be. Macosal (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (specifically from talk:A-League transfers for 2015–16 season#Released players and down) Macosal (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Current season

Should we start linking to 2015–16 club season articles? SLBedit (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think either way is fine, If some of them move anyway before the formal matches start we would change the club name anyway so either way is fine i guessAdnan (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The league or leagues being referred to is not clear. Hack (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bayern Munich links to the new season (2015–16), which has not started, since the "current" season has ended (2014–15), so it is not clear what to link.

{{Infobox football club}} shows that current is for "The current season being played." so we should not link to the new season until it has started. SLBedit (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of footballers and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here is an example of Wikidata for football players: David Beckham. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I always had the feeling we were filling the personadata for nothing... FkpCascais (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

FKP: Well, there is very much a "not invented here" mentality among the Wikidata people and the several template editors who have actively pursued the removal of persondata from English language Wikipedia articles. One group believes that infoboxes are superior to persondata, and the Wikidata group thinks they have a better solution than persondata. And the latter may very well be true. The problem, of course, is that editors put a lot of work into persondata over the last 5 or 6 years, and most of the input data has not been migrated to Wikidata on the excuse that it is "inaccurate" in the eyes of the Wikidata folks. Personally, I have no problem with using Wikidata as the better model, but I think it is another example of small-mindedness to delete persondata without fully exploiting/transferring the valid data that exists. I suggest you make sure that the Wikidata profiles for articles of concern to you include all accurate data from the persondata templates of those articles. I am not a regular editor of footballer bios, but I am providing this head's up to WP:FOOTY and the other major sports WikiProjects in the hope that some of the data will be preserved. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that, at least in the football-related bios, the data at the personata is inaccurate. I could bet that the accuracy is superior to 95%, and the 5% may be just cases of nationalistic vandalism regarding country of birth (vandals often change country of birth in cases of disputed territories, new countries, etc.) which nationalistic POV-pushers often changed in all, infobox, article body, and personadata. Personally, I never complained about personadata, but I heard some rumors against it, and I just find sad that so much time and energy was spent in something that will just end up being deleted without any use. But that is life. Best regards, and thank you for your head's up. FkpCascais (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anywhere, a set of simple instructions (that even I can follow) in respect of transfer of info to Wkidata? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no such instructions, Eagleash. The transfer of data must be done manually, using cut-and-paste as useful. I suggest you open one window in Wikidata and another in Wikipedia and move from article to article. At a minimum, I am including nationality (e.g., "English") and principal occupation (e.g., "football player"), as well as full name when available. If a player is a World Cup champion, I would think that is noteworthy to include, too. Being an American, I am including data in Spanish and French, in addition to English. If you have any questions regarding correct Spanish or French, use Google translate with the full expression for best results. Don't hesitate to ping me with specific questions as you start to work with it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Right thanks I am OK with that...once transferred do we simply delete the P'data 'section' from the articles? Ta. Eagleash (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: After you have transferred useable data from the persondata template to the Wikidata profile, feel free to delete the persondata template from the article. By doing so, you may save another editor the time and trouble of exploring whether the data has already been transferred. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, here's my list of recent Wikidata contributions [3], so you can get a feel for what data I'm entering for other athletes. Please note the importance of including full name and maiden/married name data. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please insert "Footballer" (association football) instead of "football player" (American football) You added "association football player". SLBedit (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't really say much about persondata, other than I just treated it, more or less, as a second infobox when creating new bios. A lot of info on Wikidata has been pulled from persondata by bots, so a lot of info which is wrong can usually be traced back to Wikipedia anyway. Since Wikidata also has a problem with vandalism, predominantly by Spanish-speaking users, it would be especially helpful to keep an eye on these items. If you have an article here on your watchlist, you can also "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" by ticking the relevant box at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, so it's not at all necessary to keep two sets of watchlists. As Dirtlawyer said, adding the birth name (coincidentally of Spanish/Portuguese footballers who often go by a shortened name, this is useful) as an "alias" makes it easier to search for that particular person, and there are also the "properties" P1477 (birth name) and P1559 (name in native language) which can be set. If anyone has any questions regarding items on Wikidata, I can answer either here or there. Jared Preston (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: "Football player" is different from "Footballer". d:Q937857 label may be confused with d:Q19204627 (if one reads American as nationality). Why not rename Q937857 label to "Footballer"?

@Dirtlawyer1: To clarify, on Wikipedia, Footballer redirects to Football player which refers to "different types of football" not association football (footballer). SLBedit (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Done, sir, as requested. "Footballer" sounds kind of slang-y to my American ear, but I was just educated yesterday about the historical difference between a "cricket player" (a professional) and a "cricketer" (a gentleman amateur). If I keep hanging around you European sports fans, my IQ is bound to rise.

More importantly, you are manually checking the persondata and Wikidata for all of the footballer articles on your watch list, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am/will as they appear in the list. I only enabled Wikidata in watchlist preferences yesterday. I'll pay more attention to it (although I'm not logged in there). SLBedit (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia article page, on the far left side under "Tools", there is a link for "Wikidata item". If you click on it, it will take you directly to that article's Wikidata profile. Once you're in Wikidata, you can skip from profile to profile, just like you were moving from article to article in Wikipedia by using the search dialog box in the upper right. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm kinda new at it myself, but I've picked up a lot of practical experience in the last two days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: May I remove {{persondata}} even if not all of its data was transferred to Wikidata? I looked at a few articles I created and most of the data on Wikidata is incomplete. SLBedit (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit:If the data is incomplete then it should be manually added. The persondata should not be deleted until the info. has been transferred (as I understand it). Eagleash (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Dirtlawyer1 said the same. SLBedit (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradicting information

List of association football players with 50 or more goals in a season and Cristiano Ronaldo- the first one says Pele and Ronaldo have both scored 50+ goals in 5 seasons, Cristiano Ronaldo says only Ronaldo has- both use the same source which doesn't mention it at all. Any ideas on how to proceed? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I removed them both, the source mention nothing about it at all , not even mention there is a record so when someone has a real source for it they can be added again Adnan (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Order of sections

A fellow user has told me that it has been discussed (and supposedly agreed on) that the PERSONAL LIFE section should be before the statistics and the honours in the order of contents, I missed that thread, can someone enlighten me please?

My two cents (and I have seen this M.O. in hundreds of articles, and no contrary voices were ever raised): I always thought that the order was CLUB CAREER/INTERNATIONAL CAREER/HONOURS/STATISTICS/PERSONAL LIFE. In some cases, EARLY LIFE/YEARS could replace PERSONAL LIFE, and in that case it would appear at the top. However, to insert PL mixed with all-sporting sections (career, honours, stats), why? Makes no sense to me, moreover when some PL sections don't even contain sporting elements (most do, though).

Attentively, happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fellow user was me. Read the discussion above. SLBedit (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Per what I read above, it is said that the CLUB/INTERNATIONAL CAREER and PERSONAL sections are text and stats and honours are just figures, therefore the order must be that particular one. Does it have anything to do with reading the data on (for example) mobile devices or is it just for aesthetic reasons? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Club badges

There is currently an IP editor enlarging club badges, sometimes pretty excessively [4]. I've had a word on his talk page but he's still cracking on. Maybe I'm being over-critical but they look ridiculous to me. Any input would be gratefully received. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting.

No need for [[File]] in image parameter, unless badge is too small. SLBedit (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

URL "resurrections"

Is there any way to revive the dead ref (same) in the articles of George Leandro Abreu de Lima and Cao (Portuguese footballer)? I added it back in the day, now it seems to be dead, for quite a controversial BLP topic.

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the website has just changed its urls: just search for the article title and you'll find it. That's one reason why we include the actual title of our sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A million thanks, found and reinstated! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Athletic Bilbao moved

Hello, just saw that Athletic Bilbao has been moved to Athletic Club (association football).. per WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't this stay as Athletic Bilbao? JMHamo (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(@Anentai:) Yes it should. Where is the discussion about the move? SLBedit (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed to restore Hachim Mastour

Can an admin please restore Hachim Mastour's article? The article has been deleted many times before, and rightfully so as he was not notable but he just made his full international debut for Morocco today in an official Africa Cup of Nations qualifier, making him notable. At just 16 years old, he's the youngest ever player to play for Morocco! TonyStarks (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@TonyStarks: If he made his debut then definitely he is notable, but you need source for this first please . thank you .

 Done Thanks @JohnCD: JMHamo (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Group standings have one misleading column heading

At this point, the group standings have one misleading column heading -- "Group stage result"

Combined with the entries under this heading, it seems the teams in question have already clinched, or been consigned to, the results in question.

This could be clarified by modifying the heading -- e.g., to "Group stage result (preliminary)" or modifying the entries (e.g. "would advance to knockout stage"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.116.202 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

New template

Is {{UEFA Youth League top scorers}} needed? SLBedit (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a definite candidate for WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 15:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominated here... JMHamo (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Copa América has fake logo

It has been pointed out that the logo we use on 2015 Copa América is fake. I'd get a new one, but I don't have the graphics skills to make the background transparent like it is on the fake one. Can somebody help? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The background doesn't necessarily have to be transparent. Just grab the one from here and crop it. Nanonic (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

International goals

For a footballer who has played with his national team, we should include a list of their goals scored, or is this somewhat excessive? What should be the consensus here? There are many articles having a section for it, it should be removed from all of them? This stems from a discussion concerning the article of Radamel Falcao.

Examples:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

--Brayan Jaimes (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I feel that an 'International goals' table is WP:NOTSTATS, however I know I am in the minority there, and so as long as they are fully referenced they should probably remain. GiantSnowman 11:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman in that the tables are contrary to WP:NOTSTATS. However, I feel the only Wikipedia policy being followed by most of the people who add these tables is WP:ILIKEIT. I can't see any encyclopaedic reason to keep the tables, hence why I disagree with their addition. – PeeJay 12:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't include lists of international goals for club matches, so I don't feel we should for internationals. Season-by-season statistics for club level and year-by-year for international level is what I included for player statistics, like here. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that they need to be removed, and we also need a firm policy on this. Too many people keep insisting that these tables are valid even when a majority oppose them, and they end up staying in articles for no good reason. It's textbook WP:NOTSTATS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If everyone agrees that it should be removed, we should explain this to the editors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players so that this not happens again. --Brayan Jaimes (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to their inclusion, I just don't see the point of them. The logical progression would be a list of all international appearances, and that way madness lies........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove section International goals do not forget to remove also sections like Statistics and Club statistics, which contains much more pure statistics than section International goals. Personally, i'd prefer to keep section ″International goals″ instead of ″Club statistics″, because international goals looks more important and they are easily verifiably which i can not say for club statistics of a player from a small country or a developing country. NOTSTATS is a dangerous policy, like a trap; according to it there can be deleted a lot of valuable articles from sports, even FIFA World Cup records is in danger... --XXN, 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A season-by-season table of all a player's appearances is far more useful than a list of each of his international goals. Club stats are just as easy to verify as international goals, so there's no problem there. – PeeJay 00:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Precisely. The issue isn't solely that they're stats, it's that you end up with a huge amount of excessive detail. Also, how on earth do international goals look more important than club statistics, XXN? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

International match is the top level in association football. All footballers plays for some clubs but only the best of them are selected to play for national team. Results (including scorers) of international mathes are more easier to verify than a table of 8 x 15 full of digits, edited permanently by users. Simply, there does not exists enough good resources for club statistics; detailed, with separate league and cups goals. Soccerway provide data for active players only for latest 8-10 playing years. For playes who played in 1990s-2005 you can't find normal data. Footballdatabase can provide good data only for top players ([8]), but for rest of players they does not have complete statistics ([9]). Challenge for you: I just added international goals for this player, but try you to add his club statistics)) --XXN, 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why show international goals, though, which is inherently biased towards strikers? If international football is so important, why not show a list of international appearances..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• International matches are not necessarily the top level of football. The World Cup, and competitions like that? Sure. But the random friendlies and minor tournaments? No chance. You adding in international goals to an article whilst there being an obvious consensus here against that was NOT a good move, and you should self revert - particularly when it's just one goal. I mean come on, that's just ridiculous, having a table for ONE goal for a player who retired years ago. You're also ignoring several good databases, like Soccerbase, which is comprehensive for the divisions/competitions it covers (which is far from every division, I'll grant.) And you're using an example of an extremely obscure player who played for teams so obscure that they don't even all have articles as a basis for your claim... well, yeah, of course information is going to be hard to find on him, particularly from an English language search. Oh, and the argument of "only the best of them are selected to play for national team" has never held water, as friendlies (and even minor qualifying matches, and group matches in tournaments where teams have already qualified) are regularly used to give younger or less-well-rated players a game. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Career achievements of sportspeople, there are a few examples of this type of thing being covered in standalone lists. I would suggest this only considered for the very best footballers. Hack (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the relevance of that category? No one in there is an association footballer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, but it is an example of how other sports are able to list the major achievements of their best players. – PeeJay 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3: Now Memphis Depay is at United, shouldn't you delete the International goals tables of his teammates (national record holder) Robin van Persie and (near inevitable future national record holder) Wayne Rooney? We don't want him to feel left out '''tAD''' (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point. Wikipedia isn't working to a deadline, after all. Oh, and don't be a smartarse. – PeeJay 20:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sevens matches in season articles

Should matches from the HKFC Soccer Sevens be included in season articles? For mine, no because, firstly, they aren't "association football" and secondly, teams do not send anything resembling their first teams.

When I removed them from the current Wellington Phoenix season I was reverted and told "players play and get match experience and the coach can trial. get off your high horse and stop sticking to the letter of whatever made up law strikes your" (sic). Aside from the personal attacks, I was basing this on the fact that no club season thus far has included such matches. In fact, the Wellington side did not allow the coach to trial, with the side being coached by the regular assistant coach and only four of the ten man squad having full contracts with the club. Macosal (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a sevens football tournament, with no actual relevance to the 11-a-side league. I'm reverted, because it's not actually relevant, and isn't an actual preseason tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not. All other friendly matches are listed as far as i can see. Doesn't really matter. -Koppapa (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

it is association football, only a different version of it (7 instead of 11 players). Also clubs very rarely send anything resembling their first teams in preseason matches, especially at the beginning of the preseason. the point of trialing is to trial the fringe players, not the ones with a cemented place. And kudos to Ernie for giving his assistant coach the reigns for the tournament. The same guy btw who coaches the senior reserves team. Macosal please check your facts before writing. It makes you come out not very smart. And that wasn't a personal attack, just some constructive criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between non-first team and having more than half the squad of uncontracted players. Sentence one of Association football reads "Association football... is a sport played between two teams of eleven players." I know my facts (where was I wrong about anything?). And "check your facts" is constructive criticism, but "it makes you come out not very smart (sic)" is a personal attack... Macosal (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

watch me! Watch me! I can also quote an article: sentence one of five-a-side football (redirect from seven-a-side) reads "five-a-side football is a variation of association football..." Also the players you are referencing are not uncontracted, they are just contracted to the reserves squad. Also clubs have fielded uncontracted players in friendlies. It's called trials to check if they would like to sign them. Do you see the fact checking you haven't been doing?. Finally you are once again hogging the conversation despite saying you brought this discussion to this forum to get more opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to constantly adopt this sarcastic tone... I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough but yes, I meant not contracted to the Phoenix first team (not on professional contracts). But yes, you're right, let's see what others think. Macosal (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

it's irrelevant to which squad they're contracted. The season article is about the whole team, not only about the senior squad. Signed, -me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's World Cup Notability

Lately I have noticed pages of footballers in the World Cup getting listed as articles for deletion. I was wondering if we shouldn't make pages for the women who have yet to make a cap in the world cup? Da Drewster (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the AfDs are just poorly thought through. Being in a World Cup squad should really confer notability. Number 57 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• If they've played for their country, then it definitely does, and a massive trout needs to be dished out to anyone nominating an article for deletion like that. If they've been called up to the squad, they probably can be assumed to meet GNG, but there's also no guideline for such a thing happening. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: The AfDs are for two players who are uncapped. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhao Lina and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Ohiaeriaku (the latter you have already commented on). Number 57 21:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just worried that every page I make will be nominated that haven't made an appearance yet. (Two of mine already are. Note: I've only made two like that). Da Drewster (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How about ... moratorium (or plain-old-freeze) on all AfDs for women's players on World Cup sides until the tournament is over? Let's see who gets a chance to play and who doesn't. We can at least say: "Decent chance that between now and three weeks from now they will earn at least one cap, so instead of going through an AfD and then recreating, let's just wait." OK? Common sense? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds sensible, even if we assume that being at a World Cup isn't enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that question is beyond my limited capacity to decide. (smile) But, as you say, even if it's not enough in the long run, we can all be patient for three weeks. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I understand its tempting to add articles especially regarding to big events like World Cup, but still unless it is mentioned in the notability that just being in a World Cup squad makes someone notable, we should stick to the usual WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Consistency should be always implemented. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Always implemented"? Nah. Wikipedia is big and messy, and sometimes that's part of the fun. Look, I don't recommend people start articles that go against WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. But I also think that whatever articles are already written can just stay where they are until either (a) the tournament is over, or (b) the subject earns a cap playing in the tournament. That's quite soon enough to make sure consistency is implemented. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I agree, its totally messy especially for non-european related articles. But it should be improved and based on my previous experiences, I thinks assumptions makes thing worse. Maybe the criteria of the notablility should be updated, but that will need a lot of discussion. Just an example, Lukeno94 mentioned here that Christy Ohiaeriaku was called last year also for the African Women's Championship last year but still until now she is not yet notable. I am not against new articles, it's just I believe assumptions should not be a reason to make an article. As you said, we will then see in the end of the tournament. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• But the point with that article is there is one good source that is easily available, and it is easy to reference her presence in two separate tournaments. Whilst that doesn't satisfy the letter of any guideline, logic dictates that it makes her more notable than many people who actually do pass NFOOTY. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You really need more than one source to show notability. Hack (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Betis" or "Real Betis"?

Weeks ago, I was discussing with @Qed237: about how to call this club at Wikipedia here and now I see there are continuos changes at 2015–16 La Liga article, I want to have a "global consensus" for stopping this little editing war. If Wikipedia worked always with the term "Betis", I don't understand why it must start suddenly to use "Real Betis", as this term is not more popular than the first one. Any way, as I said, I want your opinion. Asturkian (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Betis. SLBedit (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The club is at article name Real Betis for a reason. Also official spanish association has Real Betis for example here and here and also ligabbva.com lists them as Real Betis. If we move on Soccerway, ESPN, goal.com, livescore.com, soccerstats.com and many other of the top results when I search for "Liga adelante table" for the league table for this season shows Real Betis. I cant see why we should remove Real, then we can remove it from Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and a lot of other teams. Qed237 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be "Real Betis", just as it should be "Real Zaragoza", etc. – PeeJay 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The analogy with the other teams doesn't work. Zaragoza and Madrid are places which have other football teams, so need disambiguated. Sociedad is the Spanish word for society or association. Betis doesn't mean anything and isn't a place, which is why it's usually used by itself. Both titles are fine, the official name is often given where necessary at the start, but the sources generally go on to mostly use Betis thereafter, see examples at UEFA, Marca, El Mundo, El País. Betis is more common. Valenciano (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would you call them just "Betis"? This whole argument of shortening names on the season articles is actually really stupid. If the clubs is called one thing, why are we shortening it to show which city they're from. Pretty soon either Man City or Man Utd will just be called Manchester. I can almost see it happening now. Like having AC Milan as just Milan, with Inter Milan as Internazionale. What's wrong with using the names that everyone knows them of? I see no logic in calling any club anything other than their official name, minus the FC suffix or equivilant. - J man708 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

J man708, not sure if you read my previous reply or not, but we're not shortening it to show which city they are from, since there is no such city as Betis, nor any place of that name. The team is from Seville. If we are going to go with full official names then Real Betis is a non-starter, since the team's name is Real Betis Balompié. Your arguments seem very self-contradictory. You seem to oppose having Inter Milan as Internazionale, even though the team's official name is Internazionale Milano, but then say you see no logic in not having the official name. You oppose having AC Milan as just Milan, but say that we should have the teams without the "FC suffix or equivilant." The AC bit is Associazione Calcio - Football Association, the equivalent of FC. Valenciano (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to comment that in Spain the term "Real" is very usual and is practically used like an FC, except in Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and Real Unión by historical reasons. Asturkian (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't want "Betis". "Real" is also used to talk about Real Madrid. Use Real Betis then. SLBedit (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

E-A-S-Y, Betis in box, Real Betis when it first appears in storyline. Then from there until the end of story, Betis. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, because an IP editor says "end of story", that's it? Hahaha.

Valenciano, I totally get your point of view that Betis isn't a place and is just a club name. I'm saying that we should use the name that the vast majority of people refer to the teams as, as much as possible. This generally is a prefix, but not a suffix to club names. I've heard of clubs having the following names: AC Milan, AS Roma, FC Copenhagen, AFC Bournemouth, AEK Athens, APIA Leichhardt. I don't know about you guys, but from the media, I've heard these prefixes used all the time. Clubs do also contain suffixes in their proper names, like Rosenborg BK, Sydney FC, etc. These shouldn't be forgotten, aswell.

Perhaps this should be overviewed case by case? My question is why is it okay for the Real branding to be taken off of Betis' name? It's a pretty big thing to be called Royal. Where should we stop? Should the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club's article lose the word Royal, as there isn't another yacht club there, or because they're no longer in the Commonwealth? I understand that there isn't another Betis to confuse them with, but if that's the case, shouldn't Inverness Caledonian Thistle just be called Inverness, Heart of Midlothian be just called Hearts or Midlothian? If we are to take the name Real Betis and neuter it down to Betis, then there would be a lot of other clubs that could have their names shortened, due to ease of usage. The club's article is at Real Betis for a reason. Betis goes to a disambiguation page leading to the river that the club got their name from and the club's article itself. You made mention of official names aswell. This is all well and good to point out, but have you noticed that a lot of Spanish footballers use shortened, practical versions of their names? It's the same deal. We know the footballer as Iker Casillas, much like Real Betis. Not Casillas, like Betis; or Iker Casillas Fernandez, like Real Betis Balompie. - J man708 (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not agree un two ways. We know them as Íker Casillas or Andrés Iniesta, but in all boxscores and lineups they appear as Casillas and Iniesta. And in the other hand, the "Royality" of the clubs is perfectly removable. My team is called "Real Sporting de Gijón" and in all articles it is referred as "Sporting (de) Gijón" instead of, e.g., "Real Sporting" without any kind of discussion.

Asturkian (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit. I must add than in the examples of ACF Bournemouth (see Premier League Talk) and AEK Athens could be confused with other teams (Bournemouth FC and AEK Larnaca, for example). Asturkian (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

J man708, it's as Asturkian says. Real is not quite as common as FC, but it's still very common nonetheless. Real Club Deportivo de La Coruña, Real Sporting de Gijón, Reial Club Deportiu Espanyol de Barcelona, Real Club Celta de Vigo, to give a few examples, are never referred to with the Real part and I don't see why Betis should be an exception. You might cite Real Madrid as a reason why, but I would say that, in that case, that's used because disambiguation is necessary with another high level team (Atletico Madrid) from the same area, pretty much the same reason we have AC Milan. While WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, the principle is a useful one in articles too and therefore Betis is more common than Real Betis. Valenciano (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The example with AFC Bournemouth is an ongoing discussion on the EPL talk page at the moment. If we're to shorten Real Betis to just Betis, then why not shorten Atletico Madrid to Madrid? Deportivo La Coruna to just La Coruna, in order to disambiguate them from Deportivo Alaves? Let's look at what we have available for us to reference. The La Liga website lists them under R. Betis, which when clicked on shows a paragraph with the heading "Real Betis". During the paragraph, they are refered to as Betis in passing. If you look at another club like Atletico Madrid, they are also shown with the heading "Atletico Madrid", with the paragraph shortening it to Atletico. The Liga BBVA's official table shows them as Real Betis. Their Facebook page is named Real Betis Balompie, but during posts they self reference to Real Betis. Your reference of WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to be the case if you look at the A-League table... - J man708 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What do independent reliable sources use? Hack (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

CfD candidate?

When I first started editing, several youth squad templates adorned the various footy articles available, from the under-17s to the under-21s, but they were all deleted in time. Thus, I imagine this category I saw at Juan Bernat, "Category:2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup players", is also going to be eventually "iced" no?

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was initially unsure about this; I am inclined to say that youth tournament participation categories are non notable, but interested to gauge opinion here before I consider CFD. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Didn't we vote to delete a bunch of these a year or so ago? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the creator still has not been notified, is this going to be allowed to stay? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the logic is behind this in the first place. If we have a category for 2014 FIFA World Cup players for example, I don't see why we shouldn't have one for grade age competitions. They're both international tournaments, both run by FIFA, both featuring the top teams from qualifiers, not sure why we should be taking a different approach then? TonyStarks (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read first line Tony, youth squad templates have ALL been deleted. Might I add, if a player has only appeared in youth competitions, he should NOT get an article, regardless of the number of FIFA-organized tournaments he has appeared in. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Format" section for leagues

I often look at league tables across various different countries on Wikipedia, and on many occasions it isn't entirely clear exactly what the format of the league is. This is particularly true of leagues with splits or play-offs, where extra matches are played over and above a standard round-robin. Some countries have a detailed explanation (eg Russia), some have a brief explanation (eg Hungary) and some have no explanation at all (eg Belgium). I think it would be very useful to have a standard "Format" section in each article which explains how many teams participate, how many times they face each other, and any details of splits or play-offs. Craig1989 (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's vital information that should be included. -Koppapa (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting that a format section is suggested (in fact, as the first section) per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Competitions. Macosal (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Uppercase and lowercase in article name

I was wondering about naming of articles (since I am not an English native I thoguht I should ask).

In some articles we use lowercase for rounds like

• 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification
• 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) (small q)
• 2014–15 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round
• 2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage

And in some articles I have seen uppercase like

• 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round
• 2015 UEFA Champions League Final

and in articles like 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification#Final positions (Fourth Round) we use big R in "round".

What is right here? Seems to me like a mix that has led to a few questions.

1. Why is CONCACAF first in brackets and then after a dash? Although that seems to be consistent when there are rounds.
2. Why is q in qualification small, when we have big F in Final?
3. Why do we have big R in Round? To me I always write in small letters in text.
4. Should it be small F in fourth also (i.e. fourth round)?

Any input about this would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The distinction should be whether or not the word is a Proper Noun or not eg are we using the official tournament/round name? My sense is that in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, qualification is not a Proper Noun (Preliminary Competition would be (see here)). To that end, in your list I think that 2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage should be Group Stage and, perhaps even more awkwardly, 2014–15 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round should be 2014–15 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and Play-Off Round. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

With regards to "- CONCACAF" or "(CONCACAF)", I think that this is a convention rather than situated in logic. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Super Nintendo. Proper nouns always warrant a capital letter, unless in a position where it is clearly not wanted (eBay, iPod, etc.) Whether or not the rounds themselves are proper nouns or just nouns is the issue. I'd like to think that they are. Things like "Round of 16" in general passing should be capitalised in my opinion. So, I'd see a sentence like "In 2006, Australia qualified for the Round of 16 by virtue of a 2-2 draw with Croatia." as being correct proper noun-wise. Perhaps a blanket rule to capitalise everything that isn't a "qualified", "to", "for", "and" or "the" could also be used (ie. "Adelaide United qualified for the AFC Champions League Qualifying Round and Finals Series') - J man708 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of what is "top flight" and the over use of division

I have reviewed a number of football related articles and have come across what appears to be a colloquial term "top flight" as a descriptive for what appears to be a note-worthy match, note-worthy player, note-worthy distinction within a "division". The term is not explained in WP. If it is being used should it be included somewhere in WP and possibly in the football articles so that lay readers without the "inner" knowledge of football are aware of just what it means in football-related articles. I grew up playing football in school but never was exposed to the term top flight in the game by my tutors, readers, teachers and friends-set. So I do not want to assume what I think it is and may not be. If it can mean so many different "distinctions" I think that it should be explained in the football article for at least the meaning(s) within the football subject.

Another question is the over use of the word "division" when explaining at what level is a player, team, competition. I have seen "tier" and level used in many football related articles so would it behoove for the non-football knowledgeable reader use instead of division being used to describe another division that either the term "level" or "tier" be used especially as both are currently being used and it seems that in some countries there are greater amounts of divisions or leagues than others and in the translations the significance can get confusing. I just want there to be an established consensus so that someone bent on using division to describe another form of division is not offended?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added 'top flight' to Glossary of association football terms. With regards to division - are you asking for standardization across league systems? I think that there is a subtle difference between 'division', 'league', 'level' or 'tier'. A 'division' always refers to a single league within a league structure - it can refer to La Liga, Campeonato Brasileiro Série B, Northern Premier League Division One North, Northern Premier League Division One South, etc. 'League' on the other hand can refer to a single league but might also refer to one League which operates several 'divisions' eg The Football League, the J. League, Segunda División de México, Lega Calcio in Italy from 1946-2010, etc. In many situations Leagues and divisions are equivalent but far from always. 'Level' or 'tier' both refer to single level of a league structure, across which there may be both multiple leagues and multiple divisions eg Level 8 of the English football league system has 6 divisions across 3 leagues! So these terms do not always mean the same thing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Recognizing a level of expression that fits the use of the lay-person is not a call for a standardization of how things are expressed. Just that when the words league and division are used to define itself there is probably some subconscious information understood by the knowledgeable writer that goes missing. Super Nintendo Chalmers points out how within football in particular countries there can be a football system that has multiple leagues or divisions and that some of these leagues or division can themselves have leagues or divisions within it. When league and division is used to define a league or division without putting them into a universal context that can make things confusing. When you have absorbed so much knowledge about something its explanation to others or putting it into a universal context for the non-football lay-reader can make it confusing when using the terms league and division to describe those very parts of a system. And interest in developing that type of article(s) may get lost by those that get to that level of personal competency in the subject and they may no longer have the want or need for it yet others may.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at the explanation and it speaks to the point that I am making about explanations being more user friendly. The link eventually after two moves gets to sports league that says in effect that a league is a group or individuals of that sport. League is being used to define league. That is just the same as saying that the color red is the color red. There has to be a better use of words that the lay-reader can easily understand without having to jump through the hoops to get to a satisfactory explanation for the unknowledgeable--that is the whole point of WP, not to preach to the converted. I have to restate the fact that so much subconscious is getting lost without making it to the article.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying that the articles sports league and league system could be improved then I'd agree with you. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what is the least controversial way of going about making improvements without people thinking that I would be stepping on their toes? Because there are some in WP that are not up for changing what they have written--regardless as to the voluntary community aspect of WP?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just be bold and edit the pages! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Honours for those not involved in finals

I've just gone around and cleaned up a bunch of Arsenal players' honours tables, where a lot of them were mentioned as having honours for finals they were not involved in. Just a check; I have done the right thing as per standard consensus, right? I know it won't be an issue for the Community Shield stuff (that's a no-brainer), but it's the FA Cup honours I want to check up on. They were also all unsourced, or sourced to somewhere like Soccerway, which is generally reliable for stats but not really sufficient for determining if a player actually has an honour or not IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the "Rules of the FA Challenge Cup Competition",[10] "The Association shall present 30 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final." I think that this is evidence enough that Rosicky would have received a medal, having played and scored in this year's competition, albeit not in the final itself. Thanks, C679 10:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, take the most recent FA Cup final. How many players are you able to source to have a gotten medal? Not even 11 i bet, who knows if the players in the final got one. Therefore I'd always go by full squad. -Koppapa (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all players can play the final. A player only has to play one match in a competition (even as a substitute) to get an honour. SLBedit (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's complicated, since competitions don't usually keep a record of who was given a medal or what the criteria were on any date in history. As for the FA Cup, it's traditional for only the players who were involved in the final to receive a medal on the day, although these days the FA gives the winning club a larger set of medals to distribute as they wish. Since clubs rarely (if ever) release details of who they've given their medals to, it's hard to know who is actually considered to be an FA Cup winner. At least with the Premier League they have specific criteria for who gets a medal (although it has changed from 10 matches to 5 in recent years, and I'm not sure we can say when the 10-match minimum was originally introduced). For competitions where you have to register a squad, it becomes easier, since I'm pretty sure everyone in a club's 25-man Champions League squad gets a medal, though I don't know if that extends to players on the B List (under-21s) unless they've played a certain number of games. So yeah, quite complicated. And to address the specific example of Danny Welbeck, who I'm sure started this debate, we don't have any evidence that he isn't considered a winner of the FA Cup, but we certainly don't have any evidence that he is either, so the FA Cup shouldn't be listed among his honours. – PeeJay 10:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is that he played 3 matches in the FA Cup. SLBedit (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, though, there is no evidence to back up precisely who the club gave their 30 medals to. Above you state that "A player only has to play one match in a competition (even as a substitute) to get an honour", but I don't believe there is any confirmation that this is actually true. Suppose, in some bizarre circumstance, a club won the FA Cup and used 33 different players across all rounds. They obviously couldn't give them all medals, as they only get 30 to give out............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may be regarding an "honour" as different from actually getting a medal - is that the case? So you regard any player who played at least one match for, say, the FA Cup winners, to have gained that "honour" even if they didn't actually get a physical medal........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If an honour equals a medal then I don't know. To me an honour in football is being part of the process to win a competition, i.e. to play a match. SLBedit (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Welbeck probably then should lose this 2008 Club World Cup honor too. -Koppapa (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference there is that Welbeck was named as part of a 23-man squad for the 2008 Club World Cup, and every player in that squad was deemed to have won the competition, similar to the 23-man Germany squad who are all considered to have won the World Cup last year. – PeeJay 11:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, Welbeck wasn't the one who started this debate, although he is definitely a figure who has been edit-warred over; it was actually an editor insisting that Gedion Zelalem somehow warrants an honour for winning the FA Cup, without even playing in the competition once. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow so if you play every match in the tournament but are injured in the final you dont get honour because you did not play in final? Of cource you can get the honour without playing in the final. Qed237 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If Messi was injured and miss the upcoming Champions League final on Saturday he will not get the honour? Qed237 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, Welbeck didn't play in every match bar the final, so that's a deliberate blind alley you're shooting up. Secondly, you've reverted THREE times to reinstate unsourced content into a BLP, which is incredibly dumb for an experienced editor. Thirdly, there's no evidence that Welbeck has been officially considered to be an FA Cup winner with Arsenal. Finally, the Champions League have specifically named squads, so that's not a valid comparison either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Luke, time to chill out, please? You mentioned WikiProject consensus regarding disallowing "unreferenced honours" but there appears to be no evidence of any such consensus. I am not going to revert the Rosicky article for now, but would encourage comments from other editors on this matter. C679 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I think we can agree on this much:

• Players who actually played in the match (starters and subs) should definitely have the FA Cup mentioned in "Honours".
• Players who were in the squad of 18 for the final but didn't play should probably get it.

But here's where it gets complicated, and I'm not sure whether a player did or did not receive a medal isn't a good way to do it. Each team gets 30 medals, but teams are free to distribute them how they wish. We assume that players in the matchday squad all get medals, and the first team coaches likely receive medals as well (that's Wenger, Bould, Primorac, Banfield). That leaves 8 medals to be distributed to the rest of the team and the organization (as in, non-playing staff sometimes receive medals as well), and with a squad as big as Arsenal's, the cutoff is going to be rather arbitrary.

And really, any standard we come up with for how many matches you have to play to qualify as "FA Cup winner" will be arbitrary and WP:SYNTH/WP:POV. It seems to make the most sense to restrict the honors to the players who were in the 18 for the final. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's precisely what I think, with the obvious caveat that if a team does name the extra players (just like Chelsea did with players who didn't automatically qualify for a Premier League medal), then obviously they count as having the honour. If there are explicitly named squads for a tournament (like the European ones), then they probably justify having the honour listed for being part of that team (certainly if they played). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Should we run an RfC on this? It's not entirely obvious as to what the consensus actually is from this discussion (if there even is one). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: what exactly the consensus about though...? because It is obvious very different for English competitions from Spanish competitions..so we can't just put a rule for all to follow right ? 02:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

As far as I can see, the crux of the matter here is how to define an "honour". Some people seem to believe that it equates only to receiving an actual physical medal, others seem to think it equates to having been part of a team which won a tournament, irrespective of at what point they played for said team in the tournament. So, for example, prior to the recent rule change about who gets the medal, would we have regarded Jimmy Greaves as having the "honour" of a 1966 World Cup win, even if he didn't have a physical medal in his possession, given that he played during the tournament for the winning team......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Greaves received his medal in 2009, as mentioned in his article. (see here). 78.147.108.185 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I said "prior to the recent rule change about who gets the medal....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question (and not entirely unrelated to the section directly below this either). For mine, the best reliable sources report when players received medals, and when players do not receive them they are often treated as not having won the honour (eg this article). The medal, in my opinion, is either the honour itself or an indication that a player has received an honour; any looser approach starts to beg questions regarding bit-players, youth players etc etc. Macosal (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in detail above, though, there just aren't reliable sources to cover which players got medals for winning something like the FA Cup. As mentioned, the winning team gets 30 medals which they can theoretically distribute as they see fit, but I have never once seen a reliable source that says "Arsenal gave their 30 medals to the following people....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No nor have I; I'm tempted to agree with the suggestions above that (a) players in the final squad should be presumed to have received a medal and (b) players outside the final squad should be presumed not to have received a medal (with reliable sources obviously able to rebut either presumption). Macosal (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. With league or promotion honours then there should be a minimum appearance requirement.--EchetusXe 10:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Who defines what that is, though.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking you that lol. If the minimum requirement for the Premier League is five matches and there is no source around stating a different minimum requirement for the Football League then maybe it is best to go with the Premier League standard. I can't think of any different approach. Doesn't mean there isn't one.--EchetusXe 11:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with us doing that is that the standard is going to end up being completely arbitrary. The easiest solution is the one that has generally been the status-quo; if there is no named squad for a tournament (or official appearance count), then we stick with those who were in the 18 players who competed in the final, unless there is official evidence that anyone else has been considered to be part of the title-winning team (like Chelsea did with ineligible players for the Premier League title). Going beyond that is original research IMO. The only other alternative would be to consider anyone who had appeared in the earlier matches to have the honour... but that then has an issue with players who went out on loan, were sold, who hadn't played since that one cup match in November, or youth players who came on in the 89th minute of Big Boys F.C. beating Non-League Nitwits F.C. 7-1 in the third round, and had no other involvement. As for leagues... well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and I don't see any really good way of sorting it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

agree with what @Lukeno94: has said..it makes sense Adnan (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as leagues are concerned, it's clear that, at least in England, some (all?) leagues have a minimum appearance criterion, but it is not widely publicised what this is (and even less so what it might have been in years gone by............) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of Not Featuring In FA Cup Final Squad, Players Who Feature In The Competition Qualify For A Medal as According to The FA Rules Each club in the final receives 30 winners or runners-up medals to be distributed among players, staff, and officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footieedit (talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Footieedit I'm not sure I follow your logic. Mosmof (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that there are still new accounts, and some editors who should know better (Cloudz679) who are ignoring the commented notes and the discussion here, particularly on Tomáš Rosický. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • TL;DR, but there is one so far unsupported proposal here, which does not equate to consensus. Commented notes are not policy neither are they representative of any group consensus, as far as I can tell. C679 12:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• The majority of people who have commented with clear opinions state that we should stick with just the 18 in the final squad, and there's a clear consensus for that. Most of the discussion beyond that has been deciding what to do with leagues and such, which there is no clear consensus on. But of course, you're deciding to deliberately ignore that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's a one-man crusade, led by you. You, yourself are "deliberately ignoring" the users who have changed the Rosicky article and are dismissing their contributions as "against consensus", although as can be seen, such consensus is more something that exists in your imagination, rather than at this page. Having more editing experience than said other editors does not mean I "should know better", but perhaps I (and others) have a point with this! Feel free to keep reverting everyone who disagrees with you, although there is certainly consensus against such behaviour in that case! C679 15:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Global consensus is clear - no one is commenting on that specific article because they shouldn't need to. You trying to goad me into breaking 3RR is a disgusting tactic and you should be ashamed of yourself. And yes, you should know better when there is a clear global consensus... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• So first the consensus is at the WikiProject talk page (i.e. here) and yet here, in the absence of such information, you now refer to it as a "global consensus". But perhaps you should wait for your "global consensus" before implementing your reverts against multiple users. Thanks, C679 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Global consensus = discussion held here. Which clearly is in favour of just the final squads being named in the absence of any official evidence to the contrary. But by all means, continue to misrepresent my comments and what has gone on here because you don't like it... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Far from clear. Looks like three editors agreed with your original issue, one of which was for a single player only, and not for articles in general, plus four against, as below:

"to address the specific example of Danny Welbeck, who I'm sure started this debate, we don't have any evidence that he isn't considered a winner of the FA Cup, but we certainly don't have any evidence that he is either, so the FA Cup shouldn't be listed among his honours. – PeeJay 10:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"there is no evidence to back up precisely who the club gave their 30 medals to… - ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"It seems to make the most sense to restrict the honors to the players who were in the 18 for the final. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"According to the "Rules of the FA Challenge Cup Competition",[2] "The Association shall present 30 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final." I think that this is evidence enough that Rosicky would have received a medal, having played and scored in this year's competition, albeit not in the final itself. Thanks, C679 10:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"Therefore I'd always go by full squad. -Koppapa (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"Not all players can play the final. A player only has to play one match in a competition (even as a substitute) to get an honour. SLBedit (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

"Of cource you can get the honour without playing in the final. Qed237 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)"

Additionally, two more users have opposed your proposal in the following section, with no users supporting. So please explain how this, in all, represents any kind of consensus. Seems to me very much like "no consensus". Case closed? C679 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

• So, in the example article within this Wikiproject, I'm proposing we put some variation of the following notes referring to the "honours" section;

• For tournaments with named squads with a reliably sourceable appearance quota, any player within that named squad shall be listed as having the honour if their team won the tournament and they made enough appearances to meet the quota. Example; English Premier League.
• For tournaments with named squads without a reliably sourceable appearance quota (or where one does not exist), any player within that named squad shall be listed as having the honour if their team won the tournament. Example; FIFA World Cup
• For tournaments without named squads that have a reliably sourceable appearance quota, any player who made sufficient appearances to meet the quota shall be listed as having the honour if their team won the tournament. Example: ?
• For tournaments without named squads or a reliably sourceable appearance quota, any player named in the team that won the final shall be listed as having the honour. Example: FA Cup
• Friendly tournaments, such as the Emirates Cup, do not count as honours. (I know, it shouldn't really need mentioning, but occasionally you'll get someone who tries to insist this is an honour)
• Players who have few honours for winning events may have runner-up positions listed, depending on local consensus.

• Any thoughts, particularly on better wording? It seems like we probably have a consensus here for this kind of practice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We need reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people - and nothing less. Making assumptions based on number of appearances is suimply not good enough. GiantSnowman 15:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you've quite read the proposal correctly - or if you have, maybe I didn't make it clear. You see, I'm not proposing that we come up with some arbitrary number ourselves; what I'm saying is that if we know for certain that a tournament says that you need to make X appearances to be considered part of the winning team - like the Premier League - then that's what we go with. If they don't, then we go on the reliably-sourced squad for either the tournament (if you have to select a group of eligible players for it) or the final (for something like the FA Cup). Does that change your view at all? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, I did - for many leagues/competitions (as I understand it) there are a limited number of medals which are given to a team to distribute as they feel appropriate, to both players and staff. Therefore hitting the 'minimum' appearance mark does not guarantee you a medal. This is still speculation and without reliable sources we should not be including the information, it is that simple. GiantSnowman 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's some certain degree of confusion with being eligible for a medal with actually receiving a medal. André Schürrle was eligible for a medal, but Chelsea didn't have to give him one. And there's also the question of whether a player needs a medal to be considered a "winner". i.e. If Arsenal gave one of the 30 allotted medals to the tea lady —which they can do if they wished— the tea lady is not any more of an FA Cup winner than Danny Welbeck. Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well put and my point exactly. GiantSnowman 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with @GiantSnowman: and I LOVE the logic of how explaining it by @Mosmof: because it made it clear for me to decide this, because as I understood from what you have said Danny Welbeck isn't a FA cup winner but what if in the future Danny Welbeck came out and mentioned in some of his interviews he does ?or Arsenal website mentioned he is?! then it means we should add it to his article since it is sourced right ? so basically we are doing what Giant mentioned, I don't think in Wikipedia we are in position to determine things and put rules as this. many league it is not really clear cut as premier league anyway so yes let is stick with reliable sources .Adnan (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not sure that my comment and User:Lukeno94's proposals are mutually exclusive. Just that we shouldn't conflate medals with winning. I think the proposals are actually a step in the right direction. Mosmof (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Well, what SHOULD we do then? We can't just do nothing, because then we'll continue with people ignoring the status-quo and trying to force in honours where they aren't appropriate, or where they don't line up with standard practise (as is still going on, even from those who should know better). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Vermaelen

And what about editwar at Thomas Vermaelen, some insists he is winner of Champions League (based on biased source from barca) while many media reports he has to give medal back to UEFA as UEFA demands it back as he did not play. See for example [11] and [12]. Qed237 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

is there something called a biased source ? So if the official club website [13] is saying our player has won the honor contrary to the report we call it biased source? and if you read the article NONE of them reported it from UEFA they all had said according to ( voetbalkrant.com ) ,as Wikipedians our duty isn't to classify sources as (biased) or not, and neither to give judgement to what official club says or correct them . So if the official website is saying the players have won it , unless official UEFA website or souce says otherwise, how can we ignore official club statement and follow a report from the media ? how does it make sense to give the medals at first place if there is such a rule at first place? Adnan (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"apparently", "according to reports" say the reliable sources. The original source is this. SLBedit (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing original report , and here is the UEFA regulation about :;(http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/09/88/17/2098817_DOWNLOAD.pdf) medal section 5.04 :

Forty gold medals are presented to the winning club, and forty silver medals to the runner-up. Additional medals may not be produced.

nothing mentioned about playing minimum minutes or not , and they left it to the club to decide .and Barcelona official website says he has it. Adnan (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Now we have Barcelona and Soccerway showing that he won the trophy. SLBedit (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding (did not play) or a footnote. -Koppapa (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Soccerway aren't a reliable source for that sort of thing, as they just say everyone in the squad has the trophy and nothing beyond that - one example I picked out randomly is Marcos Lopes, who apparently has Premier League honours for two seasons he didn't play a single match in. They do the same for Richard Wright - even though he never played once for Manchester City. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not? I think Soccerway's approach is quite sensible. In Germany anyone who was on the squad would be considered a winner of the title, even if he did not play. I find this fixation on medals quite strange. Consider the real-life example Ivan Lucic, goalkeeper of FC Bayern Munich II, who sat on the bench on the last league matchday of the first team (the other goalkeepers of the first team were injured or suspended) and received a winner's medal (saw that on TV) even if he did not play at all for the first team. Is he now a German champion because he received a medal or is he not a champion because he did not play? --Jaellee (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• My Soccerway comment has nothing to do with medals. Given that Richard Wright didn't play a single minute of any match for Man City in any of the last three seasons (and was rarely even on the bench, for that matter - he's generally been third or even fourth choice) the fact that Soccerway list him as having titles with Manchester City discredits them as a reliable source for honours, particularly when we know the Premier League limit on medals, and the lack of any evidence that he actually is considered to be a Premier League winner with Manchester City. I would wager that there are a fair few Manchester City fans who didn't even know he was part of their squad... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, I think Soccerway's approach is sensible. You have to have some criteria to decide who won a honor or not and being a member of the squad is IMHO a useful criterion. Publicity among the fans is not a useful one. --Jaellee (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Where has this publicity among fans come from? That was a passing comment in regards to just how minor a role Richard Wright has at Manchester City. I find it extremely hard to justify saying that a third-choice goalkeeper has won honours with a club that he's never played for, and has barely even featured in the matchday squad. Hell, the only reason he was named in the 25 player list for the Premier League, in reality, was so they had enough homegrown players. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if you find it hard to justify, it is the common approach in Germany: If you are part of the team and the team wins an honor, everyone in the team won it, even if someone only sat on the bench. Other countries seem to have the same principle, see for example Marc-André ter Stegen who did not play a single minute in La Liga and is considered as winner of the Spanish Championship [14] while Claudio Bravo did not play in the cup or in the Champions League and also won those two honors [15]. If a competition requires something else in order to be listed as winner (e.g. minimum appearances, playing in the final, whatever), then I'm sure that this information will be published and reliable sources will follow the rules and list only those players as winners that fulfill these criteria. But Wikipedia should not invent its own criteria, this is WP:OR. --Jaellee (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We've still got an issue at Danny Welbeck. Apparently Welbeck considers himself an FA Cup winner (per an interview given at Arsenal's new kit launch), but I don't know if that constitutes enough evidence for us to list it under his honours. Another editor claims "You do not have to play in the final to say you have won the FA cup, it is a club achievement therefore players of Arsenal Football club are credited as being winners of the FA cup", but where do we draw the line? Is he including all squad members? Therefore, is Isaac Hayden considered an FA Cup winner? What about Krystian Bielik? Or Serge Gnabry, Gedion Zelalem, Damián Martínez and Chuba Akpom? – PeeJay 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

When you have played several matches in the tournament surely you must be considered as a winner. IT is like a player played many league matches, but then got injured so we dont give him medal because he was not in squad last match. Some sense people. Qed237 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that wouldn't happen because leagues generally consider everyone who played more than a certain number of matches during the season to have won the league, not just the 11 plus subs who happen to be on the field for the last match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: But then why is there a difference between league and cup? If you play league and then miss final game it is okay. If you play domestic cup and then miss final game you are not a winner? That seems just wrong, both is same situation and one gets you the honour and the other dont. Qed237 (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It comes down to what we consider to be an "honour" - some people think that it equates to receiving a physical medal. In the case of a player who played in every round of the FA Cup except the final, it would probably be impossible to source that he got a medal (although as the winning team get 30 medals he probably would) so people in that camp think we can't include it. Other people aren't so tied to the idea of a medal = an honour, but can't decide on a hard and fast rule for exactly how to define how a player earns an "honour".......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round

What do we think about newly created 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round. It is completely unsourced and nothing about how it will be has been announced. WP:TOOSOON? AfD? CSD?. Qed237 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd redirect to 2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#AFC for now. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of just redirecting it. The previous "article" contained no useful information. The redirect listed by @Fenix down: seems to be the most logical choice of redirect page. - J man708 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AEK Athens

I have just blocked SteliosGR (talk · contribs) temporarily while I try and undo all their page moves/C&P moves/general changes from 'AEK F.C.' back to 'AEK Athens F.C.' - should anyone want to help please feel free... GiantSnowman 12:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If they've moved pages and left a redirect, it requires an admin to move them- most people on here aren't admins. Saying that, I've rolled back about 100 players where they changed their team name to AEK FC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've undone most/all of the page moves... GiantSnowman 12:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between referees sections

Referees tables make confusions. See below:

• 2015 Copa América#Match officials (El Salvador, ), make confusion
• 2014 FIFA World Cup#Officials (Denmark) (Cameroon), Confederations if needed, correct

To uniformity and accuracy in the data. --IM-yb (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are both assistant referees Jamaican? SLBedit (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

To add this editor has been edit warring with an other editor how the officials section should look on many articles. Qed237 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes are both Jamaican. El Salvador referee and Jamaica assistant referees. UEFA Euro 2000#Match officials has officials from UEFA and CAF confederations. But with the current format, makes confusions. Needed to have list with confederations like the World Cup articles. --IM-yb (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the IP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.153.149.65 ) who makes only reverts. The only edits are for one day and are reverts. That is for administrators. Wrongly discussing here. --IM-yb (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the referees sections? Anyone can edit from any IP and revert as he wants. Is that acceptable? The IP says that (Old format stays until talk resolution). That is a joke. Where is the IP 50.153.149.65 to talk about his view? --IM-yb (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"RER" in Latvia?

There's a Latvian club listed only as "RER" in the Latvian SSR Higher League season pages 1954–60, 1963–66, and 1974–76. I looked at a few categories of Latvian clubs and didn't see one that would be referred to as such. Does anyone know what club this is? If we have an article, great. If not, maybe we can at least come up with what the name would be so those pages don't just link to RER. On the Latvian Wikipedia, that redirects to Rīgas elektromašīnbūves rūpnīca, a manufacturing company established in 1946. Maybe that was the club sponsor, or the club was originally composed of workers there? --BDD (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Update: "RER" is also linked from Independent Amateur Hockey League, so this may be a multi-sport club. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Based on this, I'd say there's a high chance it was the works team of Rīgas elektromašīnbūves rūpnīca. There is an article on the Russian wiki for the club: ru:РЭЗ (футбольный клуб), and they are listed as RER Riga on some articles on en.wiki. Number 57 20:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change the links accordingly, including for the hockey club. Even if this is wrong, it's probably no more wrong than the status quo. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Bi Séhi Elysée Irié Bi RM

Hello. Would be great if a couple of this project's members could chime in at Talk:Bi Séhi Elysée Irié Bi#Requested move 30 May 2015. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability of seasons articles for Conference Premier teams

Conference Premier (formerly Conference National, soon to be renamed National League) is the fifth tier of English football, and is the lowest nationwide division, below the fully-professional League 2. It is a mixtures of fully and semi-professional clubs. The notability criteria for seasons articles at WP:NSEASONS is simply Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Despite the criteria for football players being a fully professional league, there is no requirement that season articles be for fully professional teams. The meaning of "top professional leagues" hasn't been well-defined, or even much discussed (AFAIK). In terms of English football most people have drawn the line either between League 2 and Conference Premier (the line between fully-professional and non fully-professional), or between Conference Premier and the (currently) two tier 6 leagues. The last discussion here that I can find on the subject is here. It was inconclusive, with three possibilities put forth. Those were:

• Use same criteria as for players (Conference Premier seasons not notable)
• Use dividing line between national and regional leagues (making Conference Premier seasons notable)
• Use whether or not the team (rather than the league) is fully professional (making some Conference Premier notable).

Recently (in 2013, and couple this year) there have been some AFD discussions that tended to conclude notability was the same as for players. These AFDs include:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Macclesfield Town F.C. season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Woking F.C. season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hyde F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season

I'm concerned that the many of the articles deleted have significant work behind them. Many area very well referenced. And some articles even seem to meet WP:GNG significant detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We're not talking a handful of articles here. Looking at the seasons templates for English Football there are

• 17 of 24 such articles for 2011-12
• 14 of 24 such articles for 2012-13
• 13 of 24 such articles for 2013-14
• 12 of 24 such articles for 2014-15
• 24 of 24 such articles for 2015-16 (oh my!)

And, many, many more in preceding seasons. Some of these may be redirects; most aren't. Ultimately, we could be looking at the mass deletion of hundreds of lengthy articles with a lot of work behind them.

I suspect some would easily pass WP:GNG and will never be deleted. Others won't. Some are borderline. I'd like to see a wide-ranging discussion to confirm clear consensus on what the policy here is; so that we neither have a series of contentious deletion discussions nor unnecessary and sparsely attended deletion discussions. My belief is that either the line should be based on fully-professional clubs, or national league (though the latter might be easier to monitor/codify). However, if consensus is that these articles just shouldn't be here ... we need to do better at deleting them; as there's a lot of effort still expended by many on this articles. I know some of you have personal grudges regarding my editing style ... let's leave that out of this discussion and remain civil and remember we are all trying to improve the project. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As shown in those AfDs, the consensus has developed that WP:NSEASONS applies to fully professional leagues only. Allowing all clubs in national leagues to have season articles is a very bad idea as some small countries have national leagues all the way down to the lowest tier. Number 57 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any discussion around this point, particularly because it is not possible to say that in every circumstance season articles below level x are inherently non-notable.. The consensus from a large number AfDs is pretty clear, that season articles are only notable for clubs in fully professional leagues except where GNG can be shown. In this instance, GNG is coverage of the season as an entity, not routine match reporting.

Looking at the AfDs above, I don't see anything contentious about them, there was almost universal opinion that they were not notable. This doesn't mean that lower league clubs could not have individual season, but they would need to show GNG.

Personally, I think the "FPL or GNG below that level" criterion works well as this can be applied across world football as using a "national league criteria" creates major issues if season articles were created for very minor teams playing in small countries at a very low level (e.g. the fourth level in Iceland would meet this criterion).

Additionally, the fact that there is a large number in existence when others have previously been deleted is just a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as volume of similar articles is not concern when considering the notability of a specific article and the fact that a lot of work went into such articles is also not a reason to keep per WP:MERCY.

There may well be a large number of articles that are non-notable and should be deleted, and this would involve the removal of a lot of work, but if something is deemed non-notable then an article is not warranted. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As an additional point, I do think Nfitz has a point here in that there is a lot of work here, so it would be good to have at least some generally agreed direction prior to any future AfDs of significant numbers of these articles to avoid any drama. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly my prime concern - the amount of work involved in these articles. Though there does seem like a genuine lack of interest by anyone else in them. Perhaps I've at least provided a road map to delete them all. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think deletion is the best option. We always had to set the notability criteria somewhere, and unfortunately that cut off teams that play below the Football League. I very much doubt that any Conference-or-lower club season will be able to satisfy WP:GNG, except perhaps those of AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester. – PeeJay 10:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Our criteria is very vague, not even requiring leagues be fully professional. We have some precedent that suggests these be deleted, but no criteria. BBC maintains a page for each and every team in this league, with articles weekly. Mosly match reports, but from time to time there is more detail, particularly in the regional press. Perhaps more so for the sole team in a city of 70,000 than one of many teams in London. Nfitz (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly not endorse an indiscriminate deletion spree, and believe every article, including these season articles, should be judged on its own merits e.g. its ability to fulfil the WP:GNG, and not on an arbitrary "line in the sand". Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would hope they'd be an AFD discussion at least for each team, however User:Number 57 has advised he plans to prod them, asked me not to take them to AFD; when I asked him to take them directly to AFD he threatened to make a request at WP:ADMIN that I be banned from removing prods. I'm reluctant to remove the prods. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the background to this, see here and here. Number 57 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Premature templates

Hi, I just put Template:2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket up for TfD here as WP:TOOSOON and saw same user, User:Hichem algerino has created several other templates like

• Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table
• Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group B table
• ...and rest of World cup tables (without new module which should be used)

and "what links here" only links to his userpage were he lists many creations.

Could anyone take a look at creations if much more needs deleting? Could the templates be put in same TfD? Help appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can bundle in templates if you want to, although it is better to do so as soon as the TFD discussion begins (i.e. before others have commented). GiantSnowman 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay great. Also I just saw that almost all articles the editor has created is completely unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Now tables also at TfD, have no time now to look at all other articles from tahat user but it might need an overlook. Qed237 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Vulturii Textila Lugoj

Could someone please take a look at Vulturii Textila Lugoj? Lots of new editors (see the history). Unpatrolled. And now a pretty strange talk post that looks unrelated. There's a Romania article for this former club too. I know nothing about football, so I'll leave this one to you folks. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sporting positions – succession boxes

Where should we place succession boxes, before or after squad/awards templates? SLBedit (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Either way it should be consistent. And someone should work out which positions/awards get a box and which don't. And if ithas a template aalready does it need a box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question. For mine, if it is in a succession box, it shouldn't be in a template box and vice versa. As far as I've seen, the only things which are used in succession boxes are club captaincies (I may be wrong, haven't seen a consensus on this. It's hard to say what awards should be listed in a template box, and I'm not 100% sure what the threshold should be. Macosal (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes shouldn't be used - if they are for a notable position, then we should have a navbox. If it's not notable enough for a navbox then it shouldn't be present. GiantSnowman 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FC Petrolul Ploiești home kit

Hey! Can someone help with the home kit for my favorite team? The t-shirt is based on the same template as Bradford City A.F.C.'s.

My team's kit
Thanks in advance! 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever help (I dont know myself how to edit these), keep in mind that no logos are allowed on kits on English wikipedia due to copyright laws. Qed237 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Peru national football team :

I was looking at Peru national football team and I noticed there is another article just for Most capped and top goalscorers which usually in other articles included at the original article not separated like this. So should we move it to the Peru national football team's article ?also another article for the result since 2005 only.. any suggestions about this one also? thanks Adnan (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Transfers in League season articles

Do we all agree that transfers should not be included in a season's article, like it was done by an editor on 2015–16 Ligue 1 ? I want to undo it, but wanted to have your opinion in case I missed a discussion on this matter allowing it. Thanks! Tuttiseme (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, from what I know we should not have transferlist on these pages. It would just make a very long list. Qed237 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All the top leagues have a separate article for transfers anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently most of the leagues have their own transfers page. For example: List of English football transfers summer 2015, List of Spanish football transfers summer 2015 and List of German football transfers summer 2015. And like you said some of the leagues such as the French league have their transfers in their season's article.Sammanhumagain^t@lk 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Glove

Anyone fancy having a quick look at Premier League Golden Glove at FLC? It's currently floundering there in dire need of reviews. Any review would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. NapHit (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian football taskforce

I am not a member of WikiProject Football, but I am working through a huge backlog of unassessed articles in WikiProject Brazil and have been using the template for WikiProject Football. So far, I have only been updating the template where it already exists. There is currently not a taskforce specifically for Brazilian football on either of the two WikiProjects, but I have added the tag `Brazil=yes' to the WikiProject Football template when I come across it and I will continue to do so. This undefined tag will not cause any harm and is just ignored by the system. The tag is also consistent with currently used tags, like `Argentina=yes'. If and when the fine folks at WikiProject Football want to start a taskforce for Brazilian football, you will already have a lot articles tagged and ready to work on. Please get in contact if you are interested in helping me tag the Brazilian backlog of articles. Otherwise, let me know if anyone sees a reason why I should not continue to add this `Brazil=yes' tag to the WikiProject Football template. —giso6150 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(Please use {{Ping|Giso6150}} if responding to this message). Thanks, —giso6150 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ángelo Henríquez

This Croatian website lists Henriquez as the second top scorer in the league season with 20 behind Kramaric, and UEFA call him top scorer with 21 and no mention of Kramaric. Which should be used in the article? '''tAD''' (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Henriquez came second with 20. 1, 2. Kramaric definetely won the award. -Koppapa (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Davide Santon :

I was working on Davide Santon stats section , the player has been transferred from inter milan but they purchased him back after few years.. is there any consensus about how should be information listed at the statistics tables ? If not I am thinking about moving the inter milan years to the bottom since I am trying to make the last year at the bottom any other suggestion ? thank you Adnan (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. SLBedit (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: still I can't find an answer for what I have asked there...Adnan (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To me the table is fine. SLBedit (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Ok thank you :) Adnan (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Move

Copy paste move at College Europa FC. Don't know if the name without college is correct either, just because uefa doesn't use it currently.-Koppapa (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. GiantSnowman 07:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, they apparently renamed themselves. I'm still unsure if it's the same Europa FC, that won six championships (last in 1952). -Koppapa (talk)

Honours (again)

Should Kelechi Iheanacho (man city footballer be considered as winning the Premier League and League Cup with Man City in 2013-14, given that they didn't play any matches? The issue is that [16] says he won them, even though he didn't play. My opinion is no, because the Premier League requires some (8?) appearances to get a medal. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If he didn't play, no. SLBedit (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the dreadful article title, which needs moving to Kelechi Iheanacho, the article needs a bit of tidying up. It seems rather over-referenced. Do we need five references to demonstrate that he is on Manchester City's books? 92.26.166.55 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for the minimum number of matches in the Premier League? --Jaellee (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This guy has made absolutely zero first-team appearances, so the question is rather academic here. 92.26.166.55 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is no minimum requirement, why does this disqualify him? --Jaellee (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case there's the fact that he didn't even sign for the club until October 2014 and didn't have a work permit until February 2015. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

...and this is precisely why I state that nothing is acceptable for honours others than a reliable source which explicitly verifies the information - no speculation or assumption ever. GiantSnowman 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That won't help. Each time a player who has won an honor according to a reliable source, someone will say the the source can't be reliable because this player obviously couldn't have won the honor because he was not in the final squad/did not play enough matches/whatever. I've already experienced that. --Jaellee (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Worst. Article title. Ever. Also, as far as I can see, the kid doesn't meet the requirements for an article anyway....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not the worst article ever, and as for the name change, I'm working on it (needs a technical move, as Kelechi Iheanacho redirects to another footballer. Also, I know he has 0 first team appearances, but he does have coverage about him, which I think might pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

TBF I said worst article title ever (I have subsequently moved it) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's valid then. Also, glad it got moved, I asked admins yesterday to delete the implausible redirect at Kelechi Iheanacho to a different page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)