Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 7 days

Football Project‑class

	Association football portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 7 days

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

Results by Round sections again

Regarding the previous discussion held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 126#2019–20 Segunda División there is now a user, Tomlui007 (talk · contribs) who seems to be specialising in adding these Results by Rounds and Positions by Rounds sections, usually as empty headers. Can an admin and/or rollbacker take a look, please? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that aswell. Getting disruptive. Kante4 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of the chat with User:Sb008 with these results by round in the 2019–20 Eredivisie, so I ask this, yes or no for having these results by round? HawkAussie (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the consensus here is not to have results by round. I would also suggest that empty section headers should basically never be added to any article. I would also slightly cynically suggest that even if an actual results by round table was added to the 2019–20 Welsh Alliance League rather than an empty header, it would not be updated/maintained...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want a consensus on this topic, there are a few things to consider in my opinion:

Make sure that the people who actually update the league season pages are informed about this topic being discussed. Without a notification, only a select few will be aware of the discussion.
Consider the impact this will have on the {{Infobox football league season}} and {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}}. If no "results by round" table, why have parameters like “Longest Wins”, “Longest Unbeaten“, “Longest winless” and “Longest losses” in the infobox? The values for these parameters is based on a "result by round" table. Why have a module which allows you to create table you don't want in an easy way?
Consider what this means to the relevancy of other tables. "Result by round" tables are by some defined as WP:Fandruft or WP:NOSTATS. However some major sites include this kind of info in their standings table. Here is one example. On the other hand it's very hard to find a site which lists "position by round" info. So how should define those tables? If I look at both tables and the attention these types of info get on other sites, I fail to see the logic by define one as Fandruft/Nostats and the other as valid info. If I look even further, how many people care about who's the kit manufacturar of a team? So when putting a lable on one type of info, it also means something for other kind of info.
Is it the intention to have only opinions as "it's Fandruft", "it's not needed" or "overkill" without any explanation why it qualifies as such? In that case I got a few more good arguments "my dog starts to bark when seeing such a table", "too much work to keep up", "I don't like the colors used".
And why isn't there a page where all these consensusses are listed? Not just the outcome, but also a referencelink to the actual discussion and a short summary of pros and cons. That way you can eventually build a real motivated blueprint for league season pages. And yes, I know of the WP:WikiProject Football/League season page. But that page is only a proposal and (in my opinion) incomplete and of poor quality. A discussion for another thread.
And finally, maybe somebody can explain to me why this is called WikiProject Football? Normally a project has, among other things, goals/objectives and an action plan/roadmap to get there. Here I see only seperate discussions which don't really fit into a big plan. How often people say something like "didn't we already"?

Anyway, my 2 cents, but most important the first thing I mentioned. Make sure people are informed about a discussion taking place. If they don't show after you informed them, it's them to blame. if they don't show cause you didn't inform them, it's you to blame. --Sb008 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their was also not a consensus on the fact that we need a results by round section in the first place. It was just added on because some people thought it would be a good idea to add something that I really deemed to be WP:NOSTATS. HawkAussie (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really deem yellow to be an ugly color. Gotta love those unmotivated opinions. --Sb008 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I rather keep my thoughts on it brief instead of ramping along with no clear thought put in place. For me I usually get straight to the point and that point being is this section was only created because some people thought it would be good to have these results by rounds section without consensus. If it was agreed that we should have results by round section for the season, then that is fine. But the fact of the matter is, the results by round section isn't needed and can easily be placed into a seasonal article for that team. HawkAussie (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I have noticed too that Tomlui007 (talk · contribs) has been adding Results by Rounds and Positions by Rounds sections all over the current domestic Welsh football league seasons. In my view, Rounds and Positions in Wales only works in tiers 1 and 2 as these are the only tiers that have a complete fixture list for the whole season and the matches are consistent. Tier 3 and below in the current season will only release fixtures on a month by month basis and even then, matches played are not consistent as there are teams that don't play week in week out and there are a number of postponements. With regards to Results by Rounds, you could have this in any league/division as just a team form guide. Onshore (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onshore and Gricehead: He seems to be also doing in the lower section of English football which probably wouldn't work with the current fixture list not really being revealed to later on. HawkAussie (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2002 or 2003

Can some of you shed a light on a bit of Slovene football history? User:Snowflake91 states that NK Korotan Prevalje only disbanded in 2003, but all sources I see state that 2002 was the last year. [1] says "1994-2002" and doesn't mention 2003, this site gives 2002 as well (in the search box, labeled "isci", you can type korotan, and the final column says "2002"); footballdatabase [2] gives the final game in October 2002. Slovene Wikipedia (yes, not a reliable source, but they may know their own history better?) gives 2002 as well [3]. This news article also gives 2002. Fram (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this site is NOT the disbandment year of NK Korotan, but a foudning year of DNŠ Prevalje, which today competes under the name "Korotan". I already included a link that Korotan played an official Slovenian PrvaLiga match in March 2003 (click), so how can they be disbanded in 2002 and play games in 2003 ? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The successor team was created in 2002. Korotan Prevalje was bankrupt in late 2002: apparently some players continued playing under the same name until March 2003, but these results were afterwards removed, and only the first 11 games (until late 2002) were taken into account for the competition, and later games were not recognised as "true" Prevalje games as the team officially no longer existed by then? It is a complicated situation, that's why I asked for some others to take a look. Fram (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korotan went bankrupt in 2003, 100%. The matches were removed because they haven't finished 2/3 of the season yet and so only those from rounds 1-11 stayed. DNŠ Prevalje (literally Football School Prevalje) was founded in 2002, so the youth selections could continue playing, as there were already big problems at Korotan back then. Edit: Here is also source, March 2003, Slovenian television, cannot get better than that. https://www.rtvslo.si/snl2002/novice.php?op=read&id=101 Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in England

This article used to list all the stadia for clubs in the top five tiers of English football, including the Welsh clubs playing in the football league. Relatively recently an IP editor removed the Welsh clubs with this edit and a misleading edit notice. The lede still says all the clubs in the top five tiers are listed.

Now logically the title does exclude the Welsh clubs so I see three options:

Restore the Welsh club stadia and note explaining why the Welsh clubs are included. This is the long-term status of the article (i.e. the status quo ante).
Restore the Welsh clubs and change the title to something like List of football stadiums in English football.
Exclude the Welsh clubs and add a note to say they play in the league but aren't listed.

I think the Welsh club stadia should be included so that the stadia in top tier English football are complete. I also think moving the page is overly pedantic. The way it was was fine for years. Suggestions? Jts1882 | talk 16:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current heading, the inclusion of Welsh clubs makes no sense. I would say option three is the best solution given that the stadiums are the actual subject of the list and not the clubs. We have List of EFL Championship stadiums and List of Premier League stadiums which document the actual leagues. Kosack (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't technically have List of football stadiums in Wales, but we do have List of stadiums in Wales by capacity, to which it redirects. It wouldn't make sense for stadia to be listed on both..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think any option is fine. The title of the article reads geographically, though, so by that count we should exclude Welsh stadiums, making option 1 less desirable - but I think we need to serve the majority of readers who would want Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, and Merthyr Town included in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Welsh club stadia should be included on an article related to English football. When the table includes the rankings within the different divisions, it is absurd to omit some members of that division. The change was made by an IP editor with a misleading edit notice, so I think we should go back the the status quo ante while discussing if a page move is desirable. Another title option is to List of football stadiums in England and Wales (as the football has always had overlap, unlike Scotland's separate system). For precision, a page move is best, but I don't think the inclusion of Welsh club stadia was causing any confusion under the current title. Jts1882 | talk 06:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cunningham

Should the article Michael Cunningham (footballer) be deleted as the only appearance he has made for Dundee is as a substitute against Peterhead (a part-time team) in a League Cup match? A Well Fan (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we class the Scottish League Cup as professional? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY requires a player to have featured in a match between two teams from fully professional leagues. As Peterhead are from Scottish League One , Cunningham wouldn't meet that requirement. If you can show there is significant independent coverage of Cunningham in third party sources then he could be notable under WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted by PROD so should be taken to WP:AFD. Giant Snowman 12:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jellyman (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles

Put a little TLC into the WikiProject Football portal today, updating some articles and adding a section. (I know portals aren't used much and can be a bit unloved, but I like them.) Noticed most of our featured articles are from England, the USA, or occasionally Australia, and only two World Cup articles have been featured. Does anyone have any interest in working together to adopt an article from a non-English speaking part of the world and getting it to FA status, perhaps a major South American or Asian club or national team? SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While most certainly not major, I was intending on nominating the Lebanon national football team for FA in the near future. The only information missing is some prose in the “Competitive record” section which I am intending on adding sometime in the following months. If someone wanted to help me out I would greatly appreciate it! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: I need to keep going, but I've added some prose. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Thanks for your help! I was thinking of doing something like the Belgium national football team where each competition has its own prose above the competition/qualification table, so that all the information in said table is sourced. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an attempt at re-writing and citing 1966 FIFA World Cup, intending to get it to GA status, but it's quite a bit of work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Football articles tend to be a little light on willing reviewers in my relatively short experience of FAC, which does hinder the situation slightly. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always worth a quick ping/talk page message. I'm quite happy to take a look if I have enough time. I have minimal FAs, but I don't mind working on/co-nominating if people are interested in that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, MLS Cup 1996 (the first one) is currently at FAC and needs feedback. It'll be part of a Good topic I'm piecing together on MLS Cup finals, which is now over halfway complete. I think I nailed down the formatting at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup and it could serve as a useful template for future GANs and FACs on tournaments; I plan to nominate 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup with a bit more work and 1994 FIFA World Cup when I can completely overhaul it. Sounder Bruce 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-German IP vandal is back again

Remember this guy? He strikes again. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Giant Snowman 20:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Europe League winners

An IP (176.214.157.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is adding that players like Conor Gallagher and Jamie Cumming won the 2018–19 UEFA Europe League on the basis they were unused subs in the final. I dispute this, given they made 0 appearances in the completion and were not even first-team players. Any idea whether they got a medal or not? Giant Snowman 08:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this answer on Quora, the question is not whether they played in the final, but whether they played in the competition at any stage in the season. If yes, they get a medal. If no, they don't. Assuming that is accurate. — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. A number of sources mention him being in the squad (see BBC for example) but not him winning it, although he does have a medal in the photo... (not that that is indicative, it could just be for press). Giant Snowman 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Because if we were to take that approach, it would negate our long-time insistence that medal equates to honour, because Mr Gallagher was certainly presented with a medal, as were all the subs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struway, how do you know he was presented with a medal? The quora answer above suggests he wouldn't have been, unless he played in the earlier rounds. Obviously not a reliable source though... — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Medal confirmed here but he says he was "lucky" to get it - does that mean he was not supposed to/it was an error? Giant Snowman 08:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA Champions League rules, on page 19, rule 11.03, state that the winning team is presented with 40 medals. They do not say anything about whom they are to be awarded to, though. According to this, Thomas Vermaelen was awarded a medal at the game but then "told to give it back" afterwards. The Indy admit that their own source may not be 100% reliable though... — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"does that mean he was not supposed to/it was an error?" - I doubt very much he would be given a medal by mistake. I presume he is just saying that it was lucky that players who didn't actually play in the final can still be given a medal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's excactly what happened to Vermaelen above though... Giant Snowman 08:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The competition rules linked above essentially state that the club is free to give the medals to whomsoever they choose (technically speaking I don't believe they are even required to give one to every player who actually played in the final!), so any claim that Vermaelen had to give his back because he "wasn't eligible"/"was given one in error" is clearly nonsense. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Usually the TV coverage shows the players being given medals and all the subs get one. It would be a stretch to say this was just for TV presentation and not an official medal, something that would be difficult to verify. The source for the Vermaelen story questions its reliability. The Vermaelen story also suggests ulterior motives for the club making a decision (e.g. transfer fee add-ons). So perhaps the medal is not the best criterion. What if a player plays during the group games, left in January and wasn't awarded a medal. Does he not qualify as having won the honour, while a player who also only played during the group phase, but stayed with the club and was given a medal, qualifies. Jts1882 | talk 08:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we can no longer rely on being in the match squad as an indicator of eligibility for the honour (I would agree the larger squads filled with reserves - for the most important matches - have caused more issues like that recently), and as has been discussed previously it's almost impossible to get a verified list of who got a medal, and otherwise reliable stats sites like Soccerway and BDfutbol are a bit overgenerous in who they say has won the competition, should we just scrap the honours section altogether?? Or what would the cut-off be, there will always be arguments about what makes someone eligible? Crowsus (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but only the registered players are eligible and you can see the lists of any of the club players on UEFA, take Basel, on those players listed are eligible to get a medal. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that means all the Liverpool and Chelsea registered youth players could get the European honours from last season even if they never played for the first team, or alternatively if they were on the player list but not anywhere near the match in question, which are the points of the issue here. So that's no solution at all, sorry. Crowsus (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - these players did not play in the first-team until the season after (and some, like Jamie Cumming‎, still haven't.) Oh and a new IP 176.59.38.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding the honours to the articles... Giant Snowman 13:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did we not have a consensus about this topic before? Govvy (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t come to a single decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

from the 2018/19 season, 23 people can be declared for the finals. Perhaps after this change and medals they began to hand in the players declared for the final and the players who played in the tournament.Kelleher, the third goalkeeper of Liverpool, was announced for the Champions League final, and then received a medal, as did Gallagher and Cumming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/europa-league-medals-chelsea-arsenal-16324937> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be that in competitions where a limited squad has to be registered (as in the Europa League, but also the Champions League, Premier League, La Liga and others), only the players in that 'A' squad should be considered to have won the competition. Players outside that list should only be given the same consideration in certain circumstances, e.g. actually having played in the competition. Considering Conor Gallagher and Jamie Cumming were only named on the bench for the final because the teams were allowed to name 12 substitutes, which opened up spots for players who would not normally be anywhere near the first team, I don't think they should be considered winners of the Europa League. – Pee Jay 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Sajh

I know that this article is relevant but the main issue here is the formatting of the page as it's seems like a IP'er has had fun in editing a completly unreferenced section into the article. The facts might be true by the style of it is not. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating date parameters

What to do with well-meaning editors who add correct stats updates but persistently fail to update the date parameters, despite multiple warnings, thereby actually introducing confusing/conflicting information? Recent examples include 86.24.216.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Danny Williams (footballer, born 1988) and @Achiravit: at Baggio Rakotonomenjanahary... Giant Snowman 09:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sigh inwardly, make a correction, move on. We'd need to establish consensus that this can be classed as disruptive editing somewhere more central than wp:footy before we can take further action. Previous discussion on this in more centralised locations haven't always gone well, from what I recall. Gricehead (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But of course it is highly disruptive. One well-meaning editor makes an update (+1 game) but doesn't update the date. Another well-meaning editor then comes a long a few minutes later, sees the old date, doesn't think it has been updated, and then adds +1. So now the stats and the date are both wrong. The another editor comes along... Giant Snowman 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that any editor adding a +1 without actually checking the numbers is being equally disruptive, regardless of who updates the date. Each editor should be taking responsibility for their own edit. I agree not updating the date is disruptive, but it's not me that you (we) need to convince. Gricehead (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding a date parameter which automatically updates?
For example: Template:Collingwood Football Club current squad has {{date|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|DMY}} in the date parameter. --SuperJew (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you might not be updating stats when updating the infobox. Giant Snowman 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that's the exact technical way to implement. My idea was to have a parameter which automatically updates when you update the stats parameters. The tech side will have to come from someone else. --SuperJew (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you split the current Infobox into three sections, players details, domestic stats and international stats and place a Revisionstamp, as described above, on the two stat boxes, then they would carry the date/time when stats were updated, but if an amendment was made to players details, eg height, then no time stamp update would be applicable.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly complex - and what if stats are only partially updated? Giant Snowman 18:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a complex solution is not applicable, then as above, make a correction and move on.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: and what if an editor updates stats partially or incorrectly and updates the date? You can't have a perfect solution when you're also relying on people's work. Having an automatic updater of the date deals with the problem that people forget to update the date, which is what you asked about. --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's equally disruptive. Giant Snowman 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead of players for Spanish clubs

I am curious, why do people remove and put back La Liga for player articles in lead, I don't understand what's going on, I noticed a few little edit wars about this, it's either plays for Spanish club or plays for La Liga club except these editors never seem to put plays for La Liga Spanish club. Maybe someone could explain what should be correct, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC about this relatively recently, see Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen#RfC on lede. The consensus there was to use 'Spanish club X'. Giant Snowman 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would never be "La Liga Spanish club", that's not natural language at all. "Spanish La Liga club" maybe, but never the other way round........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For players in English leagues we use “plays for {{English football updater|X}} club X”. I would do the same for Spain, so that we don’t risk having a player saying “La Liga” when he is actually playing for a newly relegated team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point raised at the RFC (whose consensus you are ignoring?) was that clubs are more than just the league they play in - they are also all the cup competitions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

k, forgot about that consensus, seemed a bit silly to me at the time, It's just because I saw some editors changing it back and forth on some players in my watchlist. Govvy (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga mean "the". Sightly not grammatical correct you may use "Spanish La Liga" just like BBC. The RfC never meant to be a binding case for other footballers unless we do it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, but that Rfc more people concerned that modern player are played in a few competition, such as domestic cup and international cup. Matthew hk (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of football clubs

Are separate articles for the history of smaller football clubs needed, or are they just content forks of the main article's history section? Specifically the following pages:

Prova-nome (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with having forks if the main articles are rather large, I think the Brentford F.C. is quite concerning as all the the content has been forked out and nothing left in the main article, three articles for history, not sure we should be doing that. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with them. Considering most of these clubs have been going for more than a century, history pages are a necessary offshoot given the amount of available material. Although as Govvy pointed out, the main club article should really contain an overall summary rather than simply link elsewhere as in Brentford's case. Kosack (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also see Brentford F.C.'s main article as an issue. The main article should at least have a brief summary of the history of the club. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All perfectly valid per WP:SPLIT. I also detect a hint of POV/recentism in your choice of which Premier League clubs are considered "smaller"..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed : (at least) seven of the teams listed have been league champions at some point in their history, with plenty of domestic cups and even a couple of European victories thrown in for good measure. Spike 'em (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong at all with having separate articles for each team - though there is no need for three Brentford articles! Giant Snowman 09:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prova-nome: you might want to have a read of WP:SPLIT and WP:Copying within Wikipedia – when copying a chunk from one article to another, as you did with this edit, we do need to use an edit summary that says where the content came from, for attribution. I've now done that at History of Stockport County F.C. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Ham in particular was forked after reaching a particular size and detail that meant that it really warranted its own article. Few subjects such as sports have such annualised historical content associated with a single subject. That isn't to say that some of the history articles aren't just duplication and that some amount of work couldn't be done to improve the historical element, or the main club articles historical summary. Koncorde (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, the Brentford multi-history-article split is probably pointless. They might as well be condensed to a single history topic. Koncorde (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Brentford articles. They contain a level of detail which is excessive even for a history "breakout" article and could easily be condensed and merged -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if the club had been reformed at those points in history until I checked, but instead it just seems an arbitrary split. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's just too much unnecessary detail. As an example, "Everything looked to have gone wrong in 1989–90, but an unbeaten run in the second half of the season pulled Brentford back into mid-table. Perryman resigned on the eve of the 1990–91 season and though he failed to bring success to Griffin Park, his signings of goalkeeper Graham Benstead, midfielders Keith Jones, Simon Ratcliffe and forwards Dean Holdsworth and Gary Blissett, allied with the homegrown defensive trio of Keith Millen, Terry Evans and Jamie Bates, would stand Brentford in good stead in the future." could realistically be condensed to "Perryman resigned on the eve of the 1990–91 season"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly standard level of unnecessary detail we get from @Beatpoet:... Giant Snowman 13:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a bit of fluff but it needs to be sourced to someone and have a bit of relevance. Koncorde (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which flag should we use for AS Monaco?

There appears to be a discrepancy in which flag is used to represent AS Monaco on national team articles. Some articles use the French flag while others used the flag of Monaco. Has their been a discussion on this in the past? I know in UEFA articles AS Monaco is always accompanied by the French flag. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of the French federation. Govvy (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was my thinking, however, Cardiff City and Swansea City are part of The FA yet we don't use the English flag for these clubs when listing them on national team articles. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff and Swansea are not part of the FA, they are registered with the Football Association of Wales. – Pee Jay 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly true; they receive permission from the Welsh FA to compete in English football, however they are not sanctioned by the Welsh association the way Canadian MLS teams are sanctioned by Canada Soccer, for example. Cardiff and Swansea play as English clubs in UEFA competitions. TrailBlzr (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true either. Unless something has changed in the last few years, Cardiff and Swansea players who are sent off or receive a certain number of bookings in the season are given their suspensions by the FAW, not the FA. Yes, they compete as "English" clubs if they qualify for UEFA competitions, but that's nothing to do with which FA they're registered with. – Pee Jay 16:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we placing flags beside club names, anyway? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it has to do with lists of transfers. Asterixtintin (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with national team articles, like France where currently Wissam Ben Yedder is listed as playing for

Monaco, instead of

Monaco. TrailBlzr (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to put a flag next to the name use Template:fbaicon. That links to the football association rather than the country which would be correct as AS Monaco are members of the French federation. Using the flagicon template would be wrong as they are not in France. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to think how much of an overhaul's required, with that in mind. I created the most recent one by copying a lot from the previous "window" and it's all Template:flagicon at the moment. I'm not sure how far back that goes. Asterixtintin (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly need an overhaul for the 0.1% or 0.01% or 0.001% of contentious templates. Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2019

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– This is mostly a linguistic matter that I'm not sure about, but I subjectively think that my suggestion(s) is/are better. Or possibly, using 1 as example, "Division 1 in Sweden's men's football". "Division 1" and other numbers are not used as a brand name, but rather a descriptive title for an instance, and at least in Swedish it's therefor okay, preferred and even expected, to couple it with context words when titling and referring to it. Example from Swedish wikipedia: Division 1 i fotboll för damer (wording and order is slightly different in Swedish). In comparison "Allsvenskan" is a brand name and is also conveniently enough not used in any other language or instance, and should therefor not be coupled with any sort of descriptive words, with few exceptions, as it's implied what it means by itself because of that. I'm not linguistically proficient enough to see what's most correct for this Division x matter in English. I may very well be clouded and coloured by my native Swedish. I have read Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

There seems to have been much discussion in the past about what exact title to use. As I plan to create a template for Elitettan seasons that includes some division 1 and 2 seasons, as well as correct the Damallsvenskan season template which has incorrect title links for division 1 seasons, I would like to settle this question once and for all.

In any case I definitely think the word "men's" should be added to the men's branch to make it clear that the men's articles are just about that. Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This should be done on the article talk page, not here. Giant Snowman 17:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: "Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace." says it on the bottom of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting nationality in lede in case of dual-citizenship

Hi, I still haven't fully understood the consensus regarding the nationality in the lede in case the player is a dual-national. If the player has exclusively played for one national team (be it youth, senior or both) but holds dual-citizenship, should be write "X is a Lebanese footballer who plays..." or "X is a footballer who plays..." and explain the nationality situation further down the lede? Or should the latter only be done in case a player has played for two national teams (one for the youth and one for the senior for example)? For example Diego Costa doesn't have his nationality in the lede as he played for 2 NTs, but Lukas Podolski and Vincent Kompany have, respectively, "German" and "Belgian" in the lede even though they also have Polish and Congolese citizenship. If someone could clarify the situation it would be great. Thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual not to include it if a player was born and raised in country X but played for country Y at international level. Giant Snowman 09:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kompany is born in Belgium. He had Congolese descent but never played for any Congo national team (Congo or DR Congo). For Podolski, just don't add too much German-Polish complex heritage to wikipedia. He is known as German international footballer, raised in Germany and never represented Poland. Meanwhile Diego Costa was raised in Brazil, represented Brazil before making his switch, so did Eduardo da Silva and Li Ke. Matthew hk (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managers in league season articles

Hi all,

I believe I've recently come upon an issue which was raised before (see this) but not resolved. It concerns the fact that the "Personnel and kits" table list the most recent manager for each club, but this gives a misleading image as a club might have had previous managers during a season. I know, the "managerial changes" table is just below it, which lists all changes in managers but still it's incorrect to list only the last one. Should the "Personnel and kits" table not be changed to either:

list the manager at the _beginning_ of the season, or (<--- also not perfect)
specifically mention the listed manager is the last manager in that season with reference to the "managerial changes" table, or (<--- dislike this one even more, but added for completeness)
list _all_ managers over the course of the season for each club (can be menu opening, but introduces some redundancy with managerial changes table?), or (<--- best option imho)
integrate this table with/into the "managerial changes" table, or (<--- could be good as well)
some other clever solution... Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 15:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing current managers and adding a footnote for those where there were other managers earlier in the season? Jts1882 | talk 15:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Caulker

Hi all,

The Steven Caulker article had an intro full of info that generally seems unsuitable for an intro section on a footballer, Specifically, it seems to have been drafted by someone who was obsessed to some degree with Caulker's non-senior football career. I made edits to tackle that but someone seems to determined to keep the info in the summary section detailing Caulker's non-senior career. Input from others on Steven Caulker talk is welcomed as I have started a discussion there on this topic.