Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 128

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

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

Yes that's an option (adding it at 2019–20 Belgian First Division A) although it still remains misleading to me as the note is very small and can easily be overlooked. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 17:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.91.63 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Have tidied it up to something closer to encylopedic. Hopefully that is an improvement. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Gavin Kelly?

Tottenham had a goalkeeper called Gavin Kelly on the books for their 2001–02 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. But is it this Gavin Kelly?? Or possibly a different one? Govvy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on this it was a different player. Giant Snowman 12:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like he never played in a FPL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

aaww, k, cheers thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

@GiantSnowman: This is an issue over at Stephen Eustáquio where one editor insists on maintaining "Portuguese footballer" despite the fact he was born in Canada and is currently cap-tied to Canada via a one-time switch from Portugal. He is also on the current Canada national team roster, yet his article still reads "Portuguese footballer". Seems this is a case that could use third party intervention. TrailBlzr (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Walter seems to routinely misunderstand this policy. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Scott Arfield is another case-in-point. TrailBlzr (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, @Koncorde: it's customary to to ping editors who are not usually part of discussions when you discuss them. Second, @TrailBlzr: Eustáquio has been called-up to Canada, not cap by them. Nomenclature matters. Third, "policy"? Again, nomenclature. At best it's a guideline.

I misunderstand nothing here. We have routinely stated that a player's nationality is related to nation of birth, and if capped by another nation, to that nation. So many players have been born in one nation and played for another. In Arfield's case, he's the captain of Canada men's national soccer team. I would say that makes him clearly Canadian despite having been capped by Scotland youth sides and that being his nation of birth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Only you have "routinely stated" that. As for Eustaquio, calling him a "Portuguese footballer" is frankly bizarre and misleading since he wasn't born there, is permanently ineligible to represent them, and is cap-tied to another country. With regard to Scott Arfield. He was born in Scotland, played for Scotland youth, and didn't acquire Canadian citizenship until 2016. The fact that he is Canada's captain does not change anything about his nationality. TrailBlzr (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No sense of history. Check the archives where I have raised this and seen it raised multiple times. What's bizarre is that Canada has no diacritics, except for a few French characters, but definitely not in English, yet his article is at Stephen Eustáquio, not Stephen Eustaquio.

Second he is not cap-tied to Canada. He has been called-up to Canada after requesting a one-time transfer, but has not played for them and so is not cap-tied to the nation.

As for Arfield, his most recent play is for the nation. Check the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you have no clue how FIFA eligibility rules work. A one-time switch automatically cap-ties a player to the country they are switching to. When Eustaquio filed his one-time switch, he was immediately cap-tied to Canada. Also, diacritics are used on his official Canada Soccer profile. TrailBlzr (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK - the current wording for Eustáquio is fine, and I have changed the wording for Anfield to reflect consensus and standard wording. Giant Snowman 07:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Dave Beasant

I thought he was on loan at Tottenham, most sources seem to suggest that, but the Tottenham one says ""It's not a loan deal. I've terminated my contract at Portsmouth to come here." Should it be switched over? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I was just looking at soccerbase, that's different stats also. hmm Govvy (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with the Spurs website and say it was not a loan. Giant Snowman 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

2022 format announced by UEFA

That's what an anon claims https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification&oldid=prev&diff=921806436 I don't buy it, but I'm tired of fixing your article. Let the project decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Information about the idea of the UEFA must be shown in the article. Asturkian (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. That does seem to be an official UEFA document and it does give the format for the UEFA qualifying, but that is neither the existing version that is being reverted to, nor is it the i.p's version (which is the same as the "hypothetical" format being speculated on.) The format listed in that document has ten group winners qualifying from FIFA world cup qualifying. The last places go to one team each from UEFA Nations leagues A, B and C. This is listed in Annex B of the document (page 53 of 60 of the PDF.) There is no two-round play-off system. That document's format sounds much more plausible than the "hypothetical" format, since the latter would have required 14 match days, which would have been a struggle as it would have required finding 2 extra match days from somewhere, while the one listed in the document sticks with the existing 12 match days. I'm going to be bold and include that format in the article. Valenciano (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't know where you're getting your edits from, they're not supported by that document at all. I've reverted you. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

– 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)

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.

Oppose. Completely unnecessary. The current naming is standard for football leagues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. Maintains consistency between articles as per WP:CRITERIA, as you mention above. SiliconRed (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Necrothesp, standard naming conventions. Giant Snowman 15:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Proposed names are too awkward. Number 5 7 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Necrothesp and reliable sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Support per Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given women's football has only recently started to become anything like big news, I don't think you can seriously apply this to football. For many decades the men's game has been the default. Even in the near future it'll take a lot of challenging. We don't commonly say the "Men's World Cup", just the World Cup, for instance, even though there is also the Women's World Cup. We don't commonly say the Men's Championship, even though there is also a Women's Championship, but just the "Championship". I speak as someone who couldn't care less about football, incidentally. But common sense dictates that gender-neutral language can be taken too far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose although I sympathise with the principle from an equality point of view. I would use the names of the leagues themselves as the guideline, ie its the Premier League, not the Men's Premier League; UEFA Champions League v UEFA Women's Champions League, SPFL v SWPL, Bundesliga v Frauen-Bundesliga, La Liga v Primera División Femenino etc. Unfortunately in football, male is the default and I see no real need to differentiate the competitions in a manner which they themselves do not. If there are leagues that call themselves 'men's', then the wiki article should be called the same. I think there's a stronger argument for denoting the men's national teams as such since most of the associations have an umbrella website and the male and female groups are two branches within it, in contrast to the clubs and leagues which are almost universally originated for the male game with the female version being added as a junior partner fairly recently. However, I appreciate this originated from Sweden which has a strong history of women's football but isn't something I'm very familiar with, so there may well be aspects in Sweden that contradict what I've said above. Crowsus (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If nothing else, the "in" is completely unnecessary and renders the titles ridiculously clunky. There's a stronger case for renaming them Division 1 (Swedish men's football) and so on, and while I'd oppose that in most cases, Sweden has a much stronger history in the women's game than most so I'd need to do more research. Smartyllama (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

@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)

I would suggest creating those other pages (or similar naming convention) as redirects to the current page names. That way anyone searching for mens gets a redirect to Division 1. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is quite sexist to distinguish football and women's football but not football and men's football. So in the name of equality I think that the women division names should be kept and the men's should be moved to [[Division X (Swedish men's football)]], the pages for [[Division X (Swedish football)]] I think should be like Swedish Super League. I see though, that there are more pages where the men's version is just the league or team name whereas the women's version has the word "women's" added to the title. This means that the sexism in naming standards on Wikipedia is not a local issue found only here but quite structural. One might argue that that the fact that most people think of the men's version of the league when hearing for example "Division 1" justifies the naming standard, not sure if I agree with that. Just for the records, I'm not a woman.Jonteemil (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't sexism, it is reflecting the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where the men's game is currently the default (in the same way England national netball team isn't being sexist either). At present women's football has 1/1000th the number of teams, a marginal % of fans, limited media coverage (which is improving) and ultimately is at the same point in its history as the USFL and similar were in the past in terms of having very ropey finances, and a largely amateur player base who found themselves having to go to the US for playing opportunities until very recent history. There will come a time when the women's game may draw more support and in general media conversation and reliable sources they begin to differentiate by default, but that moment isn't right now.

Onto the idea of equality meanwhile, Wikipedia has a policy on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS And linked concepts to cover a situation such as this. Your gender is irrelevant, as is mine. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox of a person who played more than one sport

Hi, in case a person has played another sport other than association football, how should that information be displayed in the infobox? For example, if a player first played futsal (playing at both club and NT level) before changing to football (also at club and NT level). Should we write futsal in brackets next to the teams (be it club or NT) he played futsal at? Should we have a separate infobox? Or should be omit the info altogether? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if any special rules for Futsal but for two sports see, for example Adam Gemili and Geoff Hurst.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that futsal players use the same infobox as football players, so if I were to create a child template it would display "Association football career" and not "Futsal career". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed a change to the WP:NFOOTY guidelines

This initally goes about the Afd currently going on with Mathias Serin and how it just passes WP:NFOOTY by a single minute. Now thinking it over, this seems to me that this one of those cases that the guidelines is a bit too leinent so that this player can get through the guidelines throughout despite the numerous WP:GNG. That is why I propse a slight change to the guideline so that it would be a start in a competitive match or 90 minutes if the player only has played as a substiute. It will still be broad enough for a player to get in under the guideline but removes those players that played an one off game as a substiute in a WP:FPL league. Thoughts? HawkAussie (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with strengthening the "play in fully-pro league" requirement of NFOOTBALL to at least 90 minutes (or a single start). I think GNG-compliance isn't typically occurring for footballers in most leagues listed at WP:FPL who haven't played at least 90 minutes (there are exceptions of course). However, others, including myself, have proposed this or similar changes and they always fail to build consensus.

I honestly don't know what to do short of going through the lowest quality stubs and improving those that can be and AfD-ing the rest. I don't have the time, but I'm chipping away at the giant pile (over 42k stubs of less than 2.5k bytes of data). Jogurney (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The answer is likely going to be no, certainly from me. For starters finding out exact sub times for players, or even if they were starters isn't always the easiest to find out on the web, and is really only feasible with players from a concentrated region of the world.

The suggestion also ignores what makes players notable is not just how much they played, but the inherent notability of the game they appeared in. Or in some cases their appearance as a sub itself is what is notable (Ali Dia take a bow). Koncorde (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This sort of thing has been brought up many times and the answer is always the same. Why is a start better than a substitute appearance (or more than one if a start is to be the cutoff), or why is someone playing 90 minutes more notable than someone who played 89? Right now, WP:NFOOTY provides us with a clear criteria for creation, sometimes a player's career fades away and they never make another appearance and these players are quite regularly picked up at AfD and the standard tends to be delete. Interestingly, the case you bring up in Mathias Serin is actually likely to be kept because the subject meets GNG despite his single minute. Kosack (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument is: if you only have one substitute appearance, you may not be adequately covered by WP:GNG, whereas starting a game better lends itself to notability. I'd prefer if WP:GNG applied in those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

We go through this at WT:NFOOTBALL every so often, and nobody in my many, many years of being an editor has been able to provide a viable, sensible alternative to the current guidelines - so they should stay as they are. There is sufficient AFD consensus that interprets NFOOTBALL as meaning 'a professional game infers notability, but only GNG only shows it'. That is good enough. Giant Snowman 11:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That is because you folks think that this is suitable enough to have loose guidelines compared to the more strict guidelines of say WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NHOCKEY. The thing here is you want Wikipedia articles that you don't need to have WP:GNG to backup that he played for those respective teams especially with players that have only played minimal game time. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a no from me as well. The requirement for debut ensures that anyone who meets the notability guidelines for playing football will have actually played football. Any requirement we set above that is going to be essentially arbitrary. Just meeting the minimum criteria for NFOOTY is already insufficient for notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitar Ivanov (footballer, born 1991). As I see it, all this proposal would really accomplish is change some of the edge-cases and create a lot needless discussions over arbitrary thresholds. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The biggest difference between football, basketball, and hockey is that there are a limited number of basketball and hockey leagues around the world which would clearly establish notability. Lamenting those guidelines are stricter ignores the difficulty of establishing a worldwide guideline for football - in this case, the lack of a hard line works to ensure proper worldwide coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The basketball guideline is basically identical to NFOOTY - if you play in a fully pro basketball league, you're notable. Ice Hockey seems to have a weird ranking system requiring a greater number of appearances in "lesser" leagues. That would be a minefield in football/soccer. Okay, there is relative rankings for European leagues (UEFA coefficient), but these change over time: e.g. the Scottish league would have been ranked in the top five or so leagues for large periods of the 60s, 70s and 80s, but is a relatively minor league now. Then you have professional leagues in other parts of the world (Australia, Japan, China, US, Latin America) where it is inherently subjective to compare levels. And, of course, the vast majority of players don't stay in the same league (and division of that league) for the whole of their careers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Right. There are simply fewer pro basketball leagues than pro football leagues. Ice hockey has gone a step further by demonstrating when players who don't make the pro leagues are likely notable per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that editors have done a good job of evaluating GNG-compliance for the borderline NFOOTBALL cases over the past several years, I do worry that it's a drain on our time and resources. Perhaps only the highest ranked leagues (top two in England, Spain, Germany, Italy, plus the top league in France, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil - Serie A, Netherlands, Belgium, USA, Japan, Australia, Russia) have consistently shown that a single or handful of substitute's appearances strongly correlates with GNG-compliance. Many players "flame out" after a debut in other FPL leagues due to injury or other circumstances and never get the coverage that a player with a season or more of experience playing the league would have. I can live with the status quo, but I hope we all understand just how many NFOOTBALL-compliant BLPs there are that are unlikely to satisfy the GNG (e.g., someone has literally created an article on every Russian Third Division player from the past 5 or 6 seasons - almost all of which are sourced to a single unreliable reference or none at all). Jogurney (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue in those situations (ie Russia) when an editor keeps mass-creating stubs about non-notable/borderline subjects, with little to no referencing, is that the editor is a problem, not the guidelines. Giant Snowman 15:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Indian football

This is regarding ISL and I-League. Coderdaddy1369 is arguing on this. Check the history of I-League and my talkpage. His and my argument will lead nowhere, so I want to raise the issue here. As per the AFC official release, its mentioned the Indian Super League (ISL) being recognised as the top league in India starting from this 2019-2020 season. So, both arent top leagues. So, in India, football structure is similar to Australian one. But, that guy isnt understanding. So, which one is correct? অর্ণব S a h a 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

1)In a football pyramid promotion and Relegation is mandatory, so how can you put ISL at 1 & I-League at 2 even when there is no relation between them, forget about promotion & relegation. 2) A second division of a country never gets a continental spot, but I-League winners are getting it. Previous year ISL winners went to AFC Cup & I-League went to Champions League! The spots are just interchanged. So was ISL the 2nd division last year? 3) No need to fight and leave the pages as it is untill AFC or AIFF officially announces I-League as 2nd division with promotion to ISL & vice versa. Till then peace✌🏼

The AFC article quoted states In season 2019-20, the ISL will attain the status of premiere league competition in Indian football. Any consideration beyond this on promotion and relegation is POV / OR.Spike 'em (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Though would be good to see some secondary sources on this, not just a single AFC press release. Spike 'em (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The press release does make clear that the parallel recognition of the two leagues is a special dispensation to India. Further it makes recommendations that promotion starts at the end of 2020-21 and for full promotion and relegation and the "abolition of two parallel leagues" in 2024-25. Until then both leaagues are top tier of their league system, with entry into different AFC competions, with the IPL being first among equals (hence the CL entry). This seems a very peculiar situation and is intended to be temporary. Jts1882 | talk 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Also as per some media reports (like these- 1, 2 and 3), I-league is 2nd division. Similar to Australian soccer league system.

অর্ণব S a h a 17:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rodri (footballer)

There is a thread on the talk page as to whether the page should stay as "Rodri (footballer)" or moved back to Rodrigo (footballer, born 1996). The page has been moved a few times with no discussions to any of them. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 20:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move support

I have began a Requested Move discussion on the Soccer in South Africa talk page to change the article title to Association football in South Africa. I hope that this may encourage some editors on this WikiProject page to join in on the discussion, and hopefully reach the consensus that I am aiming for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNkosi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions for men's and women's football teams

Recently came across significant discussion about this on Talk:England national football team (specifically Talk:England_national_football_team#Requested_move_2_September_2019 and at least four other threads) and felt this conversation should be happening here, not on one page specifically, as it is a change that would need to be made across the board for football teams. I'm going to summarize the arguments others brought forward to make the change, and I encourage discussion on the subject, as this is the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.

The FA website refers to the men's and women's teams as "Men's Senior"^[1] and "Women's Senior."^[2] This suggests the naming should be changed to match this convention as per WP:COMMONNAME.

User:Domeditrix notes that the women's team is not explicitly referred to as the women's team in articles on the subject, per the common use section of WP:COMMONNAME. The header of England national football team also has a tag on the top suggesting redirects to the women's page--there is consensus, then, that this naming convention causes confusion amongst readers. This is an easily remedied problem by clarifying the article title.

WP:CRITERIA specifies that titling conventions should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles," which is not the case as the articles are currently titled. Moreover, as User:PeeJay2K3 points out, these naming conventions already exist in the England men's national field hockey team and England women's national field hockey team, and in United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team. Nearly every opposition to the naming change are based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but the primary topic of these articles is the men's football team, not just a generalized football team, as the current title suggests--User:Domeditrix provides a more formal argument on this in their first comment on the talk page. SiliconRed (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

References

COMMONNAME refers to the name used in sources, not by the organisation itself. The press generally does not use Men's Senior team, no matter what the FA says. There are 55 teams in Category:European national association football teams all of which are Country national fooball team and refer to the men's team, so the England article is being consistent with them. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The FA website (the organisation itself) is definitely a source—and a very strong one at that. The press certainly does use "men's team" and also uses "England football team" in place of "women's team" frequently. Should the women's team page not also be titled England national football team, then? Also, those 55 articles are the articles I'm proposing to change and unify with the rest of Wikipedia. That's why I'm raising the conversation here and not on any single one of them. SiliconRed (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You say 'England national football team' and people think of men's, not women's. That is reflected in media coverage and names. Giant Snowman 17:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

To be exact, if I say "the England game is on tonight" then the assumption is that it is the England football team who are men. If I say "are we going to watch the England cricket match?" you think of England cricket team not the England women's cricket team and so on and so forth. It is a bias of media, but it is also a fact that they are more popularly attended, watched, viewed, sponsored, betted upon, and historic which gives them an inherent seniority and primacy amongst reliable sources. If we even discount our own inherent bias, the obvious metric is notability, page views, and reliable sources. At present almost all websites and reliable sources segregate by "Football" as a topic, within which there is all forms of mens football, and then "Womens" as a sub-category within which is a much more restricted volume of content. All their teams are, generally, differentiated through the addition of the term "Ladies" or "Women" or "Belles" or "Lionesses" (I think Everton may be the one team that does not officially use any term, however on wikipedia we state "women" in brackets for clarity), although within the context of their own league or division they will refer to the core club name as you are already within the sub-category (it is unlikely anyone in Womens football section reading "Manchester United win handsomely at Spurs" will be confused, but it would be confusing on the main football section were it is instantly differentiated).

A glance at websites such as the BBC, Guardian, Sky Sports etc will show a growing parity in coverage, but the standardisation of referring to Manchester United as "Man Utd Mens" and "England" as "England Mens" is very unlikely to take root any time soon as a concept of a primary topic.

This statement: "The header of England national football team also has a tag on the top suggesting redirects to the women's page--there is consensus, then, that this naming convention causes confusion amongst readers." is unfortunately inaccurate and misleading. WP:DISAMBIG explains how we come to the decision to offer a disambiguation for the England womens team at present. This does not suggest that there is confusion, only that where there are topics likely to be searched for using similar (or the same) terms we differentiate based upon the concept of PRIMARYTOPIC. Koncorde (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Worth bringing up WP:NWFCTM. The primary topic is not necessarily the most popular use of the term or whatever you may think of first. Again, because it has been used significantly in coverage--as you and several other users have pointed out--there is plenty of common usage of the gender modifier in men's football as well as in women's football. This suggests the titles should fit that usage, and as clarification on the pages to prevent misdirection. SiliconRed (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It might not be the most popular, or the first you might think of, but it is what is reflected by the reliable sources. At present if I search Manchester Utd anywhere on the internet I will not get the women's team. Google may helpfully display some recent results or a very recent piece of news if you are lucky but otherwise it will only bring back the men's football team. We reflect that consensus of reliable sources linked.

If we take the BBC website as an example, if you can find me a mention of "England men's" or "Manchester Utd men's" anywhere on their entire site at all in their history I would be pretty much surprised. The same would go for all historic encyclopedias, books, printed press etc.

Meanwhile if you Google "England men's" barring the FA themselves (who have made a lot of effort in recent years to bring parity to their presentation) you find only advertisements for the football shirt.

At present, England national football team will be th default "men's" team. I have no issues with us setting up an England Men's National Team as a redirect, but until reliable sources begin to reflect the switch to gendered references in all their output we do not have grounds for making a change that will inherently increase the likelihood of people failing to find their primary topic of interest. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you take a look at the very top of the BBC website it offers links for either "Men's scores and fixtures" or "Women's scores and fixtures." Consider yourself surprised, I guess. Or, take a look at the URL when you visit the Fox Sports page for England men's. Reliable sources clearly reflect the switch to gendered references. There are also about a dozen references in other discussions on this topic offering reliable sources using gendered references. Is this not enough? SiliconRed (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That isn't what I asked for (I was referring within articles, but I can appreciate that might have been unclear), but also I cannot see such a thing via any layer of the BBC site (their main fixture lists are shared per this sort of thing, or via their own subsection, but the word men's is not included at any level of the description in any case. If you are using Fox Sport I am going to guess you are an American and that the US site has different regionalised layout? For the UK there is simply the Football section as a starter, and to see anything women related there is a subsection so called "Women". Meanwhile if you are searching through URL's then you are already well into Original Research and Synthesis. But if we take Fox as an example, if I go to Soccer on their site, I can't even find a link via any of their menu's to the women's game... doesn't really matter what they call the England Men's URL if every other link to every other team is specifically and solely the men, and every article that isn't about the USMNT does not refer to the gender of the participants (and let's be clear, if the USMNT wasn't officially called the USMNT they would also just be called the US national team, the fact the women's team has been historically more successful is the only real reason for the discrepancy, and this is reflected in Wikipedia's naming convention).

Onto reliable sources, there would need to be an overwhelming shift. To clarify what I believe would likely be required;

1. Major news corporations and published media would have to say "men's" when referring to teams in text (as printed narrative, and against fixture lists and so on and so forth), in all situations, and all cases. This would need to be seen across all leagues, otherwise we would only be changing piecemeal in those countries that have changed it. This would indicate a trend of requiring to disambiguate due to the women's game having achieved parity of notability, or indicate that a national association or league has indicated from a certain point that this will be the case. For instance if the MLS tomorrow decided to call itself MMLS then the reliable sourcing for the name would obviously indicate a likely requirement to change, but only for the MMLS. Each team in that league wouldn't necessarily be changed unless there was a similar edict requiring New York to become New York Men's Red Bulls or something.

2. Web traffic would need to achieve something closer to equal. At present the ratio of searches is about 100:1, higher in the case of teams that aren't the US or England (which are heavily skewed by English Wikipedia being the native resource). This would indicate a growing need for the information we are presenting. However we should be clear that we are not talking about 2 months in 2019 because of a World Cup, but a prolonged trend.

3. Tied to part 1, a significant change in reliable sources to include women's football in their normal publications. By which I am referring to Football encyclopedias, almanacs, and club published information.

4. It would be handy if the women's teams stopped having derivative names. By which I mean the England team has never been called "The Lions", and the use of "The Three Lions" is only in passing to the shirt crest rather than indicating a use of it as a Noun for the team (unlike Les Bleus, or Gli Azzuri which are relatively common). In contrast, the Lionesses have taken a derivative feminised name of a non-existent masculine one. Which is a pity. So long as women's teams do this, there is likely to not be a requirement for most media to make the changes per 1 and 3 because there will always be a handy little term they can use to ensure we don't get confused. Koncorde (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not linking directly above. Here is the BBC site explicitly separating men's and women's leagues. Here is Fox explicitly separating them as well. I'm not cherry-picking here, these are pretty front-line sites. It is also patently false that every single source must refer explicitly to men's teams directly in all situations, and all cases. Women's teams are not universally separated by publications, or mentioned as such inline. How can the naming standards--if they are standards at all--be held differently depending on the article in question? Web traffic is certainly not equal between teams, but that is far from a deciding factor. Again, please refer to WP:NWFCTM. It is also not true that everyone needs to be publishing about something for it to be a common name. You also mention that the America pages are only named as such because the organization names them separately--this is also true for England's teams. As has been mentioned plenty, the FA explicitly genders both teams. My main interest here is streamlining the titling of these articles. As it stands the naming schemes are a mess. Different leagues, teams, talk pages, are all named based on decisions made by varying interpretations. This standardization is consistent, reliable, and incredibly clear. SiliconRed (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

...look at the links you provided. Do you see anything on that BBC page other than the link to fixtures that is women? No, it's just "England Football Team" and then 100% men's fixtures, tables and news. Meanwhile within each article, none of them reference the term "England men" (or I would suspect if there is a reference it would be in an article also at that point referencing England women to ensure clarity).

The fox link is similarly pointless. It is the England team, with all the England team info. That the URL says "men" is original research, and a matter for them when doing their page naming conventions.

And otherwise, yes, we do need to see it inline and across the board. Otherwise what sourcing are we using for these claims? If we see just 1 source that is largely irrelevant, it needs to be prolonged and significant.

And no, there is no confusion. At present the default for all national teams is that the definitive article is the men's team as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NWFCTM is irrelevant no matter how many times you bring it up because it is not the reason for the choice being made. The only instance that this differs is the USMNT and Canada because the name "men" (or masculine) is in the formal team name. In contrast England are known as England for both women and men, just as our U21 teams are both known as "England U21" and so on. We do not call them "England Ladies" or "England Women". The reality is that it is not the men's team whose name should be changed on wikipedia, but instead the women's team should equally be called "England national football team" with "(womens)" at the end to differentiate. Koncorde (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that a title must be used everywhere for it to be the Wikipedia title is untrue. If you use the women's team as a comparison they are certainly not universally referred to as "England women's," "Manchester women's" etc. This is true in the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and Sky News, to name a few. So clearly a name does not need to be inline and across the board for it to be used as a Wikipedia title. The England teams are formally named "England men's." That is how the governing body of the sport names them. Even if the men's modifier isn't everywhere in the Fox News and BBC sourcing above, it is clearly accepted enough for use by major publications. I don't understand your claim that using a reference is original research. As far as other examples of the gender modifier, Sports Illustrated uses it, as do several major brands: Dick's and Nike, for example. It is even used outside the sports world: PopSugar genders the team in their reporting. SiliconRed (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is that we need to see consistent reliable sourcing to make the change because the default is England National Team = the men's senior team, and without that reliable sourcing no traction will be found. It is going to need more than a sporting goods stores catalogue, incidental web URL's or headers on a few websites. It is going to need consistent and reliable references from significant reliable sources. I am not sure I can explain it to you if you don't get the basics of reliable sourcing, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC etc. I have tried to explain in several ways, but you keep referring back to incidental things or making irrelevant points.

However to deal with one specific point you made; the men's squad is not called "England Men's". All the teams are called the "England national team". They are then subcategorised as "Men's senior"/"Women's senior" and so on and so forth. Please do not misrepresent your sources. Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I've misrepresented my sources. However, you have misrepresented them. The BBC is a significant, reliable reference. Fox Sports is a significant, reliable reference. Nike and Dicks, two major retailers with significant page traffic, are significant, reliable references. The organizing body of the sport splitting the teams by gender is significant and reliable. I have also shown that in many significant, reliable publications, "England national team" can = "England women's seniors". The default you suggest is untrue. You mention that the FA names all the teams "England national team." The article "England national team" should, by that logic, either be a disambiguation page or include information about every team, because that is what the primary topic represents. Or, titling could be changed to reflect the actuality of the team names. SiliconRed (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point I am ceasing assuming good faith. You have not demonstrated anything. Not a single source you have presented has been a reliable source or has presented the information you claim in such a way to make it something that would be used. No a catalogue is not a reliable source, and no Dicks website is not a significant reliable reference about the English football team. There is no significant weight behind the suggested change for England, and even less for every single other country in Europe bar perhaps Norway and Sweden. You are not going to get the England team changed, you are certainly not going to be able to make a sweeping generalisation from a Nike store or URL. At this point I am WP:DROPIT because this is tedious and retarded navel gazing. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not use the word 'retarded' in this manner. Thank you. Domeditrix (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In what manner? I ask because if your reading of that statement is "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age navel gazing" rather than "very foolish or stupid navel gazing" then you have a problem with the word regardless of its "manner". Koncorde (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

COMMONNAME says to copy the significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources to determine usage; the FA website is definitely not independent of the subject. If you truly want to broaden the conversation to all 55 European teams then I'd suggest you show how a range of those are referred to and not just focus on England. Spike 'em (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, all national team articles (Africa,Asia,Central and South America, Oceania) that aren't Canada or USA Spike 'em (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Reading this and arguments about COMMONNAME, another question arises, why do we use "national" in titles, is it really common, because I think it is redundant or sometimes even completely wrong. I mean Soviet Union NATIONAL footbal team? There is no soviet nation, there were many nations in Soviet union, so the current name is actually a Contradictio in terminis. ˇˇˇˇ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a shorthand, often used in media for things like the "Soviet national anthem" because it's kind of the way a lot of that stuff is referred to. I have no doubt "Soviet Union football team" might equally convey meaning, but I'd have to see how the media actually discussed referred to the team to see commonname. Koncorde (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought we called them the "X National football team" to disambiguate from other football teams such as the ones at the Olympics and such. We could probably just drop this. It should be mentioned that these articles could also include the word "senior" but don't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, a Village Pump discussion was started on suggested changes. You can find it here. Koncorde (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steven Swinglehurst

The article Steven Swinglehurst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, doesn't meet WP:GNG either.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a taskforce

Hi,
As you may be aware i have been creating/improving articles the Scottish Championship and was Wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a Scottish Championship task force with me. LC1829 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LC1829: - I don't think we need a task force as specific as that, when it is adequately covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force. Giant Snowman 09:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @GiantSnowman: - okay, no worries. LC1829 (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

FIFA FIFPro World11 nominee?

I don't get how being nominated is an honour and I got reverted, can someone explain this to me? Govvy (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've also seen some of these being added and would also be of the opinion that being '12th best defender' or whatever Aymeric Laporte was, is not an honour. Crowsus (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's not an honour really, then why are some editors listing this! I got reverted once already on Son's article... Govvy (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, not an honour. Kante4 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

FIFA FIFPro World11 nominees have the same status as FIFA FIFPro reserve teams (2nd–5th team). They are qualified as honours. Pinineeon (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

by whom? And why do you keep adding it back? Govvy (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, where is the consensus that these are honours? They don't seem to be notable to me. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

FIFPro officially announced the reserve teams until 2018 which consisted of 44 nominees and other editors entered them all. Then, can you please guide to me that where is the standard? Pinineeon (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to confess I have never heard of this FIFPro thing, but can I confirm that the players being talked about were nominated for an award but didn't win it? Well that definitely isn't an honour then. How can not winning an award be considered an honour? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't ever remember the football project adding nominations like an we do on film/movie actors Bafta/Oscar nomination. We tend to list honours in this project. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2a02:c7f:5004:1b00:518f:543b:8e17:50b0

Can somebody please intervene with 2a02:c7f:5004:1b00:518f:543b:8e17:50b0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Reece James (footballer, born 1999) (where he is repeatedly removing entries from the career stats table). Some OK edits, but others like this (look at that edit summary!) are bogus. Giant Snowman 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool vs Manchester Utd rivalry

Evening all. I have just BRD'd this edit over on the Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry page by @Hjk1106: as I don't feel / believe that the rivalry conferred by the male teams necessarily means that there is automatically granted such a notable rivalry between women, and that if there is, it probably warrants it's own wikipage rather than being tacked onto the men's. I expect that this sort of thing may be added to other rivalry pages as the women's game grows, so prior to that happening I just wanted everyone to offer suggestions as to if I am barking up the wrong tree in suggesting that they stand alone. The women's articles may reference the men's history as an aspect of their own rivalry, but it should primarily reflect the notable aspects of their own rivalry first and foremost. Comments appreciated. Koncorde (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, we're still getting this kind of inherent misogyny in 2019. The long and short is that I have clearly distinguished that the team's talked about are DIRECT SENIOR affiliates of the stated club's and should therefore be respected as such, qualifying their relevance to the article title. Clubs consist of men's and women's teams: yes, they are different teams but they are one singular club. The clubs market the games as equivalent derbies using all the same terminology and sentiment regarding the aforementioned rivalry. There's no reason to not afford the content its own small, properly labeled and cited section. It does not detract anything from anyone looking for "male" information but does add something for those looking for the wider picture whereas starting an entirely different article does the opposite, essentially chastising half of the population and limiting the narrative to a primarily male gaze within sport. To suggest women's teams "stand alone" as you crudely put it instead of being part of their club is nothing short of disgusting. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, there is nothing inherently misogynistic about suggesting the women's teams have their own articles rather than being wedged as an afterthought into an article about another subject. There is also nothing misogynistic about asking for some cited evidence.

If there is support for these changes then we should also reflect such changes in the lede, in infoboxes etc rather than your halfhearted attempt. I would expect consensus to reflect that if there is one. Koncorde (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, stand alone refers to the idea that as they have unique histories, unique club records, unique matches against each other, unique player pools, etc they are distinct. If Manchester Utd WFC were to develop a rivalry with a team that doesn't currently have such a rivalry page, do we wedge all the men's heads to heads in it too? Koncorde (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the initial skepticism but seriously, multiple clubs in WSL and beyond are explicitly marketing the games as natural progressions of these exact rivalries, what more do you want?

As for new rivalries then yes, I assume the same logic can be applied if a women's team developed a rivalry notable enough for its own wiki article and the men's affiliate was to then go out of their way to say it is the exact same rivalry like they have done with the reverse. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Marketing does not a rivalry make, and reinforces the point. This is synthetic, with no history, or per the content you have provided - actually a shared history of players. Koncorde (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will once again refer to the notion of geographical rivals versus competitive rivals that you are willfully ignoring and I have also had to repeat at the bottom of the page because you continue to parrot the same fallacy. They are the same club, whether men or women, and inherently it is the exact same rivalry. I never said the marketing made the rivalry, simply reinforced it. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not wilfully ignoring, I am stating that there is more to a rivalry than two clubs happening to exist. You might want to defer the rivalry to have no standing of its own and be based in the men's rivalry but that seems to basically make the women a sideshow. And if it is deferred to geography alone, then what makes it a rivalry? Why this geography? Because of Manchester Vs Liverpool? How does that rivalry stand with the player sharing? How about the recent allegations of Man Utd fans singing at disaster related songs at Liverpool? Is that a formative element of the rivalry? Is it unique / distinct? Do we need to change the articles lede to be more inclusive? You seem to have made your mind up that this is about gender. My argument is that Man Utd and Liverpool confer no more rivalry kudos to any team, affiliated or otherwise that would make it particularly notable or relevant and that if indeed it is notable or relevant then it almost certainly should be a component part of both main WFC club articles. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

They're the same clubs, you continue to ignore this. It's Liverpool v Manchester United, that's why it is included. It's not about Liverpool men v United men, it's about the clubs and how, better late than never, we can include senior professional women's teams in the stories of their respective clubs and corresponding rivalries. Help me understand why you're so vehemently opposed to acknowledging that because it's mentally draining going round in circles for the sake of merely repeating that they're different teams. I have admitted they are different teams but they are the same clubs and the rivalry is a resultant extension of that. As I said earlier, it is doing no harm to include it in the article for anyone simply looking for information on the men's teams, they just won't read it. But the omission (through creating its own distinct article) of women, is indicative of a damaging societal willfulness to exclude and/or other women's sport. Same club, same rivalry. This shouldn't even be a talking point. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing mentally draining going on, you are being intentionally dramatic and have been from your first contribution here. I will summarise:

1. The article on Liverpool FC vs Manchester Utd has a lede that specifically excludes women by referring solely and only to the heritage of the mens rivalry. I have no objection to the inclusion of womens information other than the pages premise itself is not set-up to support its inclusion, if it is decided that including them is the appropriate thing to do. If we are going to do it then the entire article needs to be changed and the changes therefore need to be supported by reliable sources to reflect those changes. I objected to its inclusion on those points alone, as I put in my edit summaries quite clearly that my concerns were regarding the absence of supporting or corroborating sources for a rivalry existing between the womens teams:

"I would suggest that if there is a rivalry between the two women's teams (unclear from sourcing) that a distinct article be created of it can be supported by reliable sources."

"this article is about the rivalry between Liverpool FC and Manchester Utd not the women's teams for which no historic rivalry is evident. Please take to talk page and / or discuss at WP:FOOTBALL"

2. The argument that they are the same club but different teams and therefore share rivalries is your opinion from what I can see looking at the very limited sources provided; and this does not counter item #1 that the article in question is currently set up to reflect only the mens game. If we accept the same clubs / same rivalry statement, then part 1 needs resolving. But even if we accept the premise the question is; does that by default make them party to all and every rivalry? If so, then women should be added to the Arsenal, Leeds, etc rivalries also by default (and vice versa in the future should the womens team form a new rivalry). However I would suggest due to lack of sources provided that this likely falls under WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

3. For instance, the sources provided such as the BBC article you linked to for instance does not really support any great reference to a rivalry (difficult after a pair of matches). Specifically it asks the question "Rivalry: Was there spice on and off the field?" and then goes on to state "There was an enthusiastic crowd at Prenton Park to cheer on both sides, although the nature of the singing was aimed towards encouragement rather than antagonising any opponents. Fans mixed without incident in the stands, but the crowd of 829 in a 16,500-capacity stadium made it difficult to create an atmosphere. On the field, it was fiercely competitive and spirited but that, it could be argued, was down to the competitive nature of two well-assembled, well-matched sides rather than any derby fervour. "There was a bit of spice in the game," United boss Stoney added. "I used to play for them and recruited heavily from their team. It is pleasing but you want to beat any team whether it's Liverpool or Reading who we play next week, you want to go out, perform and get points on the board." So while there may be a rivalry between the parent Club of both teams there is a distinct difference between "one of the biggest rivalries in the association football world" and (to paraphrase) "doesn't matter if it's Liverpool or Reading". The difference in tone in the rivalry should almost certainly be reflected more clearly, and I question (per edit summaries) that it almost certainly would be different enough to suggest a different article is required. There may be better sourcing out there, you didn't bring it though so I judged the contribution by its content.

4. "But the omission (through creating its own distinct article) of women, is indicative of a damaging societal willfulness to exclude and/or other women's sport" is it? You think placing it at the very bottom of an extensive article does a good job integrating the content? Do you think it's better for womens football to be able to stand alone on its own success, or latch onto the mens game and co-opt its history? What you are doing is WP:SOAPBOX at best, with a dash of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing via WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:USTHEM.

5. "This shouldn't even be a talking point." Which is the worrying part really. As a collaborative process, wikipedia is pretty much a whole lot of talking points hashed out. Nobody has to agree with you. Calumny doesn't win you support, it just makes you look intolerant and stupidly attacks allies. Koncorde (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How long has the rivalry between the women's teams existed? Jts1882 | talk 20:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

One match in the WPL. Koncorde (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with "I don't feel / believe that the rivalry conferred by the male teams necessarily means that there is automatically granted such a notable rivalry between women", but it is almost automatic to note about the neighbouring clubs as a rivalry so i think this okay. I note that rivalries not based heavily on geography (e.g. ManU v Leeds, ManU v Arsenal) do not have a women's section, so it does not seem that is assumed that a male teams rivalry will transfer to the women. Jopal22 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, I have not attempted to create any content regarding a ManU v Arsenal rivalry despite the women's teams having already met twice because there has simply not been any sentiment to suggest that a competitive rivalry has been transferred. However, the two major rivalries born out of geographical proximity have already been established. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not though? If they are the same club then it bears out that they are the same rivalries? Or the men's and women's teams have their own distinct histories that need some actual context when extending to a rivalry. Koncorde (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have gone out of my way to answer every question you have thrown up to attempt to block what is clearly relevant information and you are purposefully choosing to ignore it. While I appreciated your initial skepticism in order to keep articles relevant, I am now assuming you are being willfully ignorant in an attempt to further your own unconscious misogyny. As Jopal22 just pointed out, this a geographical rivalry which is different from a competitive one. Secondly, as I have already stated, they are direct and parallel senior teams of the club and have been treated as such by clubs, media and fans, especially when it has come to rivalries. You are yet to provide any logical argument to the contrary, instead rephrasing the same small-minded, opinionated and subjective objection. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not lie about your "appreciation" or otherwise. You were always intent on using the mysogyny card from the very immediate instance of your appearance here and are continuing to do so. If you cannot AGF then you are incapable of being rationalised with, and you evidently have no interest in forming an actual policy that would support your pov rather than doing a shit job of forcing content into an article in such a half-assed way. Koncorde (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a shame you assumed I was lying, that shows a distinct lack of good faith on your part. "At this point I am ceasing assuming good faith" as said by you in an earlier thread. So it is one rule for you and another for everyone else? Also please do not swear at me. As for your misogyny, it's not so much of a card as a reality. The only reason you continue to use is that "it's different because it's women" while the only facts in this thread point to the clubs being a single entity and therefore relevant to the article. I won't be drawn into this cyclical, opinion based nonsense any further, especially when you cannot remain civilised. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You were lying, and by the above still are lying. Look at your opening sentence to me. "Wow, we're still getting this kind of inherent misogyny in 2019"; there was no appreciation of anything. And as I stopped AGF to another user, not you, who was being intentionally obtuse after over a dozen replies. I am confused as to why you would think that would apply in this situation unless you are a sock account? You want to tell me you have ceased AGF with me, that's fine, but don't start with accusing me of misogyny and then pretend you were being genuine from the off. You aren't, you weren't.

I started civilised. I asked for feedback and discussion. I prompted you here to ensure you could take part. At no point despite you starting with the misogyny card did I make it about you.

And half-assed is not swearing "at" you. It is stating your contribution was "done with little effort or care; incompetent or inadequate". Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How was suggesting your edit was unconsciously veiled in misogyny not AGF? You can't help being socialised, I understand that. That's why I responded and drew attention to it. But ever since then you've been on the defensive in terms of pretending this is a personal attack on you while also continue to push forward your agenda without actually forming a coherent reason. Also, you said I did a "sh*t job" which is swearing. Pretending it didn't happen doesn't help your supposed AGF. -- Hjk1106 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not buying it. You didn't say unconscious, veiled or otherwise. You specifically accused me of being a misogynist, more again you stated that I was "essentially chastising half of the population and limiting the narrative to a primarily male gaze within sport. To suggest women's teams "stand alone" as you crudely put it instead of being part of their club is nothing short of disgusting" and effectively throwing "is indicative of a damaging societal willfulness to exclude and/or other women's sport" at me amongst other things... well, I can't take that as anything other than a complete misrepresentation of both my stance, and me personally. And if your offence is at stating you have done a shit job, then you are going to sorely disappointed. Your first sentence in the article is such incomprehensible bollocks I would be ashamed, and it doesn't get much better thereon, "The first meeting between the clubs' two professional direct affiliate senior women's teams was the first game Manchester United W.F.C. had played following the team's creation in May 2018, the first time the club had a senior women's team since the previous iteration's disbandment in 2005 shortly after Malcolm Glazer's completed takeover." I would suggest you have another stab at the lot. Koncorde (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A seperate page for Teemu Pukki's international goals

Hi,
Do you think it is necessary to create a seperate page for Teemu Pukki's international goals as he now has 22 goals for Finland. LC1829 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In a word, no. It is longstanding consensus to only have such articles for players who are now, or previously have been, the record goalscorer for their country. Pukki is still well short of Jari Litmanen's record -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd written something in an edit conflict but yeah, as above, not for 10 goals. Crowsus (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

List of foreign EFL Championship players

Do we really need this article? I can (just) cope with similar articles for top-level leagues of major countries, but not lower level... Giant Snowman 15:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, especially considering that foreign players playing in the Championship is hardly unusual and the list will just grow and grow - how many players would be on this list in 10 years' time? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that logic ChrisTheDude - wouldn't the Championship have less foreign players than top-level leagues (like the Premier League)? --SuperJew (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but then I don't think we need these lists for top-level leagues either. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Got it, so you're having a different discussion than GiantSnowman who is saying it's okay for top-level, but for some as of yet unexplained reason not okay for lower level leagues. (Personally btw I think at lower level leagues foreign players are more notable as they are on average "rarer". The criteria for lower level might be financial as well though, not just tier - For example the A-League probably has less foreigners than the Championship) --SuperJew (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's have List of foreign Vanarama Premier players as well. Giant Snowman 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: that was a helpful comment --SuperJew (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it depends on the level of coverage of the topic. In certain leagues (e.g., Liga MX) there is a lot of focus on how many foreign players clubs have used, while in other leagues there is much less. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this list is redundant and an example of cruft, and indiscriminate information. What is notable about being foreign to warrant a list? I could kind of understand a category maybe for tagging foreign players to have played in the EFL (and it may already exist). Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think in England this is less of a notability, but in the A-League there are (currently) 5 visa spots for foreigners, and there are always discussions of changing it to 4+1 (one having to be from AFC) or cutting it down to 4 or 3+1, and the visa players get on average more media coverage than other players, and more fire if they underpreform. As Jogurney said above also Liga MX has more focus on foreigner players, while leagues such as the Israeli Premier League and many Asian leagues have restriction on number of foreigners a team can have. --SuperJew (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But should it be a list, or Category then? I would suggest the latter unless the list is going do more than the example provided by GS. Koncorde (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That list is overkill, we have a lot of categories that do this already. Govvy (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The list shows in one place and divides by countries though. Also lists are usually better updated than categories (at least from my experience with the A-League) --SuperJew (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Warnings when previewing a league season template

Warning: orphaned results = text_ELGS

Warning: orphaned results = col_ELGS SLBedit (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Is it a module coding issue? Maybe someone like Frietjes might be able to help, Govvy (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Template seems to be working, the only difference now is that it shows those warnings. SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The warnings mean that something is defined in the QR section but not used yet in the results section of the table. I don't know which league you are looking at, but the most likely reason for the ELGS to remain unused in the results section is because of the need to wait for a cup winner who will qualify for the ELGS. Equineducklings (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I first saw it at {{2019–20 Primeira Liga table}}. SLBedit (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ELGS is not being used by the third-placed team. SLBedit (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Portugal is one of the countries which goes with what I was saying. The Taça de Portugal winner will go to the ELGS. Until it's decided, the ELGS designation will go unused in the Primeira Liga table. This warning does not necessarily indicate that anything needs to be fixed. Equineducklings (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct. I just commented out the ELGS line. SLBedit (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

yes, these warnings are just warnings and are just there to help find/correct errors. you can find all of them in Category:Sports table tracking. I wouldn't worry about anything other than Category:Pages using sports table with unknown parameters‎ and possibly Category:Pages using sports table with missing teams‎, although Category:Pages using sports table with orphaned names‎ means there team names defined that aren't being used, which could be confusing. Frietjes (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

John Delamere (footballer)

Further input - particularly from Dutch speakers - welcome at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#John Delamere (footballer). Giant Snowman 20:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag since 2011 on Marcin Pietroń

Does he meet WP:NFOOTY or not? I don't know much about leagues, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears so, according to the source in the article, he did play for Zagłębie Lubin and Arka Gdynia in the top two divisions of Polish football, both of which are listed as fully professional. Kosack (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The article meets NFOOTBALL because he played for Zagłębie Lubin in the Polish top division, which is considered a fully-professional league. I'm unsure whether it would satisfy the GNG, but I added a few details from an igol.pl article that touches on his career. Jogurney (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this tag. It's not really true. There are other tags that would be more suitable if it were to be tagged Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Aleksandr Hleb

Hey. Is it possible to add information that Alexander Gleb is the winner of the International Football Tournament in Malta together with the national team of Belarus. In my opinion, it is worth noting the achievements of the players with their modest teams, in order to have a complete picture of the player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.158.13 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh, it's an invitational and so friendly tournament. Kante4 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally support the 'meh' here. It's basically a few friendly games. We don't put International Champions Cup or Kirin Cup in honors, do we?--BlameRuiner (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes,friendly tournament . But I think that for players from weak teams it is worth noting victories in such competitions, because this is also an achievement and fully reflects the player’s career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.158.13 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Standard practice is not to include friendly tournaments. For what it's worth, he played in one of the three round-robin games and Belarus finished top on goal difference. The name of such a set of friendlies in an honours list, with no context at all, doesn't add anything to our readers' appreciation of a player with 80 caps for his country. If someone wanted to fully reflect that career, adding written content to an international section that currently contains nothing more recent than 2007 would do it better. But that would take work, particularly for those of us who don't read the relevant language(s). Unless anyone comes up with convincing arguments for retaining the entry, I'll follow the majority view at this discussion and remove it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that friendly 'honours' should not be included. Giant Snowman 15:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

players from weak teams - we either include them all or not at all. There's no "this guy deserves this honour". Professional and competitive only please. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing against some amateur honours being includes - for example the FA Amateur Cup historically or FA Vase more recently. The key thing here is that it must be competitive and a notable tournament (ie with its own article). Giant Snowman 15:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean notable, not professional. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it again per this discussion. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nepal national football team kit history

Hi guys, I would like to the attention of members of this WikiProject the article Nepal national football team kit history. It was created by Ayoopdog in September 2015, has seen little attention since and is pretty poor state. It was thinking of nominating this for deletion but I did find Peru national football team kit which is in far better shape. If no one is willing work on this article to bring this up to standard, may I suggest that this be taken to AFD. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AFD is to question "should this article be on Wikipedia?", not to question "should this article be on Wikipedia in it's current state?" --SuperJew (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history. Giant Snowman 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks GiantSnowman. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review

A significant number of the new articles received each day are about football topics, mainly biographies but also everything else. There is a huge backlog at the NewPagesFeed and more editors with experience of notability and knowledge of soccer are urgently needed to patrol the pages. If you are already a New Page Reviewer, please help out as much as you can. If you are not, please check out WP:NPP, then take a look at the requirements at WP:NPR and if you feel up to it, apply for the New Page Reviewer right at WP:PERM. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Just had a whack of the oldies, football biographies should be up to date through July now. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If an admin feels like granting me this access, I'll have a go at this. Hack (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Instead of NPR, may be some input is needed to improve this draft: Draft:Jamaica national under-23 football team. Even accept it to the article namespace, it seem missing a lot of info. Matthew hk (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You just need to ask for the permissions at WP:PERM, Hack. I have NPR access, I can take a look at some of these now I'm back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Any timeline coding specialist?

The timeline graph in R.W.D.M. Brussels F.C., which generated by <timeline></timeline> has something wrong. The horizontal black bars have become diagonal on my Firefox web browser. Matthew hk (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK now? A script-assisted edit ages ago had removed a space at the end of one of the lines of parameters, and putting it back has fixed it for me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was fixed. Guess i should learn the code and apply to club that have merged several times, for example lots of Italian clubs. Matthew hk (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with MLS Cup bracket

Could a template coder help with assembling a new MLS Cup bracket? There's a new format this year and we're currently using (at Template:2019 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket) a generic four-round bracket that lacks some of the features found in previous MLS brackets. A specialized version of Template:4RoundBracket-Byes with conference colors and dates/locations (similar to Template:2018 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket) is all that is needed. Sounder Bruce 17:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Figured it out, I think. Working on Template:14TeamBracket-MLS right now. SportingFlyer T·C 06:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Should be done, updated, on the site. A little worried it violates MOS, but it should be enough of a copy to work. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks great so far. I'll go in and try to tweak it where I can. Sounder Bruce 06:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Perhaps the cell borders should mimic those from {{12TeamBracket-MLS}} (#006 for East, #600 for West) instead of the gray, which looks a bit strange. Sounder Bruce 06:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I actually prefer the grey, but let me know if you need them updated for consistency's sake. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

2016–17 Bangladesh Super League season

This Bangladesh Super League season never started and was cancelled. It is possibly fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability#League_notability. Shouldn't it better to merge with parent article? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. That would be god. -Koppapa (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be articles discussing its cancellation. I would add them to the page instead. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: "Due to less stadiums and infrastructure, the tournament has been cancelled without any press release" - That's it, i don't find anything else. it was suppose to be first season of Bangladesh Super League. The whole league was canceled and no single match/season was ever played. I think instead of another article, we can discuss this in the main article (if more info available). If there isn't any other objecting i would like to merge & redirect. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, if it was the first season that changes my opinion completely. I didn't want to leave a season out of a set. Thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

rank table on premier league pages

I've read rank tables are not welcome on english version of Premier league championships (and other). Could it be more acceptable to include a gapchart graphic as it shows ranks but also points, gap of points between teams and more generally it shows tight competition portions of the championship (like ranks 7th-12th around half season) and key events (like Manchester city and liverpool taking the 1rst position)

Can you at least, write down here why rank tables are not welcome.

Evolution of ranks and points of the 20 teams along the 38 days of the Premier League championship 2018-2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic.vernier (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about anyone else, but that's pretty unreadable to me. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That looks like blocked intestines.🤢--Egghead06 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a graph of all teams are ever suitable like this... Maybe on an article on the season showing a team (or two teams) position by match, if it was a notable part, could be used like this - but that's all I could ever think it would work. If you can't see why the table doesn't work by looking at it, I don't think I could put it into words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a mess. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I like it. The initial impression is WTF, but on a closer look the curved lines are easy to follow, much more so than than the usual graphs with straight lines. I think such graphics as images in the right sidebar that can be expanded would be good additions. Jts1882 | talk 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's superficial detail presented in a granular chart. Say two teams who are neck and neck, makes some degree of sense. Say one team outright winning, and showing the margin to the next best, makes a degree of sense. Showing 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th etc in contrast to 1st by a margin of points... a bit pointless. Certainly not helped by the absence of axis, and the overlapping nature of the snakes. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This just looks like a poor mans Positions by round table to me, which is something I back, but has been consistently rejected on here. This would have the same problem, e.g. what do you show when games are delayed etc Jopal22 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I find this incredibly difficult to digest, myself. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't figure out what it is actually trying to show. Teams go up as well as down, so can't be points. Teams all end up higher than where they started and have gaps, so cant be positions. I assume it is some sort of hybrid, but without clear explanation it is meaningless. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's just positions each week for the vertical arrangement/order, but with points accrued being used for spacing (I think). So at any point in time the chart tells you what position they were in relative to the other teams, and the spacing would indicate the points difference. Where you have a team move up above multiple other teams, this would indicate both that they have climbed position in the league - and their proximity to the new teams around them would indicate if there are points difference, or shared positions. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do any other sources use such a chart or is it a creation of the user? The meaning of the chart is not apparent, and without a concise explanation it will just confuse people. Spike 'em (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the original poster is actually one of the research scientists involved in devising the chart. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In which case it would be WP:OR to use it before any secondary sources do. Spike 'em (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh, not really OR (no more than a timeline or other positions through the year type chart many clubs have on their pages such as this). The underlying data is all factual, and there are sources for it. This is just a method of displaying the information in a graphical manner. It's unfortunately relatively difficult to read in a way a lot of people might hope to read an equivalent table. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To me that just looks like a "position by round" chart visualised using weird wiggly lines rather than simple numbers, and it would therefore simply fall afoul of all the objections raised in the past about those (how do they work when teams have got games in hand over others, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

FAC request

I currently have Ninian Park at FAC if anyone is willing to take a look. It's nearly over the line but needs an extra set of eyes or two to get it there. If anyone has the time, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Indian football system

I made these 2 tables/chart of our football system. please review it. if any edit required, tell me in my talkpage, or edit it there. I am writing here, since there was no reply in WP:IFTF অর্ণব S a h a 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In which bi-annual season is an annual competition considered?

In the case of the AFC Cup, which runs from February to November, in which season would it be considered? In the February season (2018–19) or the November season (2019–20)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Honours section for a continental cup winner

Which players are considered to have won a continental competition (such as the UEFA Champions League or the AFC Cup)?

All the players to have been called up in the competition (including group stage matches and knock-out stage matches)
All the players to have played at least 1 minute in the competition
All the players to have been called up in the final (the players who received a medal at the final ceremony)
Only the players who have played in the final

Thanks in advance, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What do the competition rules say? What about reliable sources? We cannot make such assumptions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The AFC competition regulation (page 64) states: "The AFC shall award the following medals: forty two (42) medals to the Champion; and forty two (42) medals to the Runner-Up". "The Participating Players and Participating Clubs that qualify to receive the awards, trophies, and medals are required to attend the relevant prize presentation ceremony. Participating Clubs shall be represented by the eighteen (18) Participating Players, Head Coach and one other Participating Official [...]. No other officials, players, or staff of the Participating Clubs may participate in the prize presentation ceremony". Does this mean that only the 18 players participating in the final, who have been awarded a medal, are officially winners? Why would they give 42 medals then? Is it for former players who played in the first half of the competition before joining another club in the second half? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CSA Steaua București (football)

Just noticed that club name from someone else's edit. Doesn't that go against how we name teams? Should we rename the article? Govvy (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That format is used, see eg Galatasaray S.K. (football). Whether that is the correct name or not is another matter. Giant Snowman 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know it's kinda confusing to me, but "Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București" basically translates to Steaua Bucharest Sports Club, So I thought the correct title on the English wikipedia would be Steaua Bucharest S.C.F. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't translate the name ourselves. Are there any English source using "Steaua Bucharest Sports Club" ? Matthew hk (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seem someone else had disambiguated the entry Steaua București. However, it seem all pointed to CSA Steaua București (football), instead of FC Steaua București. Do we need yet another discussion that the past player of Steaua București (until 2017), should point to CSA Steaua or FC Steaua ? Matthew hk (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We cannot have two teams (CSA Steaua București (football) and FCSB) both claiming to have been the original ASA founded in 1947. Giant Snowman 13:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GiantSnowman:. Please stop. One is about Wikipedia:Article titles. One is about WP:disambiguation. Matthew hk (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: both discussions are related to names involving 'Steaua București' teams. Now because of your edits we have my comments in the wrong section. I have merged again. Giant Snowman 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And instead, which i observed, in Belgian football, they have R.W.D. Molenbeek, R.W.D.M. Brussels F.C. and RWDM47. Apply to Steaua , we need to decide which one is the successor, either by the naming rights sense or the legal person sense (and it is more complex when club split). Matthew hk (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two clubs which legally are claiming to be the original Steaua Bucuresti. CSA Steaua is the much less notable one, and the majority of people will be looking for FCSB. In terms of what the article's name should be, I don't see any reason why we would rename this anything other than CSA Steaua Bucuresti? SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Well this Guardian article refers to a "Steaua Bucharest Football Club", using English naming and talks about the clubs identity, history and conflict. Govvy (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then the article seem about Steaua Bucharest Football Club aka FCSB, not the CSA one. Matthew hk (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel as if I have opened a can or worms found in a hey-stack! Govvy (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Liam MacDevitt

New article Liam MacDevitt was a declined draft but created by same author in mainspace anyway. It is not clear to me if he meets WP:NFOOTY, I don't think he does (was with notable clubs, but only seems to have played senior level in the NZ competition, which isn't fully pro), but people here will be better placed to judge other claims as well (in the "Media & Television" section). Page needs either cleanup (categories, infobox) or deletion. Fram (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm pretty sure he fails WP:NFOOTY. Feel free to prod it. Number 5 7 15:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

He's on the BBC graduate scheme, according to this so he wouldn't pass notability for his media career either. Gricehead (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've now prodded it. Fram (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

PROD has npw been removed with the claim "Player has played for a club in the English championship, League one and League two", which is demonstrably totally untrue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Says via yeovil town Database that he made a handful of first team appearances, both against external city and in cup matches. He was listen on IMBD as being a contributor on Match of the day kick about as a co presenter. perhaps someone could refine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshm94 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Soccerbase has no record of his having made a single first-team appearance for Yeovil -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Exeter match was a pre-season friendly. Number 5 7 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And, assuming this is correct, he didn't play anyway, he was an unused substitute -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, judging by the username, it would appear that Joshm94 is the subject himself, and therefore should not be editing the article at all. Number 5 7 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it here. Number 5 7 16:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: Just to note it looks to have been copy/pasted to mainspace rather than moved as stated in the AFD. Gricehead (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

christhedude it would seem he only had a squad number during those years at Yeovil town. Have Af’d it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.35 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Could this article be resubmitted given athletics achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.35 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Which are what exactly? 2nd place in an Irish age group championship doesn't sound very notable to me, and certainly doesn't pass WP:NTRACK. Spike 'em (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability question?

Are Marty Schafer and Ben Pollock eligible for WP:NFOOTY as they only played in an indoor professional league instead of what I assume is the outdoor varient. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say no. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it matters if we think the National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001) is professional. There is obviously in the title. Shouldn't matter if it is an indoor league, imo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, do they meet GNG? Giant Snowman 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The articles as they stand certainly don't - take them to AfD and see if anyone can find any other sources, I don't think we'll get there though. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Short names field infobox

PeeJay2K3 Seems to think that MUFC is a short name for Manchester United F.C., I am pretty sure you shouldn't be doing that in the short names field, that should be reserved for written short names and not initials of the club, I've never seen, AFC for Arsenal in short name or HTFC in short name for Huddersfield Town, we just don't do that. Does anyone else agree with me on this? Also PeeJay seems to think that people will understand that (Man United/Utd) as a short name in that format, I think it's a bit bizarre to think readers will completely understand that, I really wanted some input, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

People often refer to Man Utd as MUFC. If they refer to Arsenal as AFC, what would be the issue with including that too? – Pee Jay 21:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you Google 'MUFC' it brings up everything Man Utd related, it's a valid abbreviation - but I don't think it belongs in the infobox. Giant Snowman 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

MUFC is a bit like WHUFC, it really only makes sense in context of the website in the same way MUTV only makes sense in the context of TV channels, and then only if you know MU may refer to "Man Utd". I doubt anyone would realistically ever call them MU or MUFC, but they might instead use it informally as a hashtag, or for a supporters group, or in branding of products where there is a very clear context. I don't believe that it qualifies as a "short name" on this basis. A nickname maybe, or abbreviation, in the same way that you might see them referred to as "Man Utd" or "Man U". but not really the intent behind the short name field. Koncorde (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Unaccounted for rewards

Hello, why aren’t you accepting the change for Virgil Van Dyck, Alexander-Arnold? The Goal website issued an award to Van Dyck for the best player of the season and Goal is a fairly reputable publication. And The Northwest Football Awards Premier League Player of the Season awards for the best of the season of the English Premier League, which is very honorable and important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Northwest Football Awards Premier League Player of the Season [....] is very honorable and important" It really isn't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree per above. They're incidental awards. They may be of some relevance as part of a "Virgil was recognised in several independent polls and published magazines as the Premier League player of the season" but not really of much significance taken individually. Meanwhile I have never heard of the "Northwest Football Awards", and from what I can tell this is because they only started from 2009 and are relatively minor means for self published / advertising for Ladbrokes and small businesses. Their prominence falls beneath the "National Wood Floor Association", "North West Film Archive" and "National Women's Football Association" amongst others certainly doesn't really reinforce their standing. Koncorde (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I see Fati has been adding "Runners up" to various players also. Koncorde (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Add "runner-up", so what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Good, but maybe you misunderstood it, but the Goal award is awarded to the best player of the season in the world. Goal has popularity and influence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Runners Up are not routinely considered "honours" and there are people who actively remove them as such. I was noting the fact that by adding them you may not be aware.

And, no, Goal carries almost no weight or significance. You will note we do not really consider ESPN awards either, or similar promotional based awards from private entities compared to the footballing authorities, or affiliated. Koncorde (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 AFC Cup: 2018–19 or 2019–20 season?

Hi, would the 2019 AFC Cup be considered in the 2018–19 or the 2019–20 season in Lebanese football? The Lebanese Premier League runs from September to April, while the AFC Cup from February to November. I'm asking for the purposes of a possible continental treble. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: The answer would be probably the 2018–19 season as that was when they won the tournament. But I think it's only the top continental league and not the second tier of continental football but don't quote me on that. HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: the AFC Cup began during the 2018–19 but ended during the 2019–20 season. Also yeah, I just noticed that continental trebles are just counted for, in the case of Asia, the AFC Champions League. Still, it’s useful to know in which of the two seasons it’s considered. Yomimuri, the only Asian club to win a treble, have won the 1987 Champions League, and the 1986–87 domestic league. For now I’m considering the 2019 AFC Cup as part of the 2018–19 season. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: At least that was sorted quickly ;) HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Minifootball: a series of articles on non notable subjects?

I just stumbled, through new page patrolling, on 2020 African Minifootball Cup, an unsourced, empty, unverifiable article. I knw how to deal with this on its own, but looking further seemed to reveal a whole series of similar articles on non notable and barely notable subjects. The 2018 African Minifootball Cup seems to have received no significant attention, which also makes African Minifootball Cup a non notable subject. African Minifootball Champions League seems to be no better.

EMF miniEURO may scrape by, barely, but 2011 EMF miniEURO, 2012 EMF miniEURO, ... all seem to lack the necessary coverage for stand alone articles. The same goes for United Kingdom Minifootball Association.

The Minifootball world cups are notable, and perhaps the US competitions as well, but beyond that there seems to be some need for pruning or consolidation of these articles. Fram (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: The African articles are wildly undersourced and probably on the promotional side, but I think they could scrape by WP:GNG. A decent amount of press in Nigeria, not sure any of it supports anything but you at least have articles like [1] [2]. I don't support keeping these articles, but with a bit of research they actually could be an article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Probably merging the 2 African year ones to the general one, and the individual European year ones to a general article, would be a good start. Fram (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

They just look poorly made. A merge into one article for the competitions, which are likely notable (an annual international competition is likely notable - but I'd have to look for sourcing). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that these are a) of questioknable notability/worth and b) a merge is merited. Giant Snowman 13:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know this was a thing outside North America 'arena soccer'. Then I assumed it must be a situation like handball or even, to some extent, basketball and ice hockey where other parts of Europe are much more into it than the UK... but having checked, England and Scotland have even played in these tournaments recently! I have honestly never heard of this. That's not questioning its notability for WP by the way, just expressing my shock at its existence. Eurosport have plenty of futsal and beach soccer, maybe they could get some of this?? The Tennents' Sixes in Glasgow used to be class, that was one of the things that got me into the game as a kid with the goals flying in and all the teams playing at once so I could learn the kits etc. Sorry, rambling over. Crowsus (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oceania Footballer of the Year award

Is this Oceania Footballer of the Year award still awarded? I have not been able to find anything after 2015. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikael Ndjoli‎‎

Edited2019 keeps changing the player's birthdate, but has failed to provide a source for the date, which differs from all published sources as far as I can see. Can people keep an eye on it? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

hey guys

For those that care, I am taking a break as I managed to break my fingers on my left hand, so I won't be around for the next 6 to 8 weeks, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Take care--Echetus Xe 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Rest them up Govvy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ouch! Get better soon... Giant Snowman 19:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Hope you recover quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I am just about able to type with one hand, maybe I can become ambidextrous!! Govvy (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You can either take an injection which will allow you to contribute fully through the next matchday and then be out for an extra month, or to sit out and rest the injury and be out the normal amount of time. It's your choice ;) SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like some kind of Simpsons or South Park joke in there... somewhere!! Govvy (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Worse. Football Manager. Anyways, feel better soon. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes

@Walter Görlitz has continuously reverted my linking of San Jose's league titles (MLS Cups in 2001 and 2003 respectively) in their honours section claiming that that this is an act of overlinking. After combing through the entire article, these titles are only linked 3 total times, including the links I added in the honours section. Furthermore, it is common wiki football practice and standard to link title winning campaigns or cup victories in an honours section, whenever possible. If there was a ridiculous amount of links to one page, say 5 or more in a single article, then links in the prose should be unlinked not the honours section. Walter even claimed that every football club page on wikipedia is wrong and is in violation for linking club honours. This is a dangerous and ridiculous claim in my opinion. I just want to put this up for the community before Walter starts an edit war as he has attempted to do. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you're compitent enough to make that statement. I reverted you three times and I then self-reverted the third, and then you reverted an unrelated change. If you want to link dates, it goes against MOS:LINKING guidelines, but fine. I never claimed that every football club page on wikipedia is wrong, you claimed that every football club linked years to the season, and I said that they should follow LINKING guidelines.

If you want to misunderstand WP:3RR, that's a separate problem. You do understand that's what I was trying to discuss with you on your talk page though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rupert1904&oldid=prev&diff=926022688 example of not having a clue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Again the personal attacks. There's no need for it. I could refer to misspellings and grammatical mistakes in your rebuttal but I won't. This discussion or argument is not about who is competent and reverting or self-reverting. It's about linking titles in an honours section on a football club page. And just to be extremely clear, you very much said ALL football club pages were violating wiki rules. These were your exact comments "if every article does, they're all violating MOS:LINKING" and "Please stop the incorrect insertion of linked years." So now you are going back on that? Good. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The linking to the specific season is fine for me. Kante4 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack when it's pointing out that you are not fully competent such as with this edit that wasn't actually restoring the content you expected.

Also, when you don't have a clue about WP:3RR as when I explained, on your talk page, that WP:3RR states, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I then provided an indication that you "reverted" three times: 2019-11-12T20:50:34 adding the links was revert one, 2019-11-13T14:23:15 revert two, 2019-11-13T17:41:47 revert three. These are all within 24 hours. You clearly did not see that I self-reverted my revert of your third imposition, and so you reverted, as was shown above, an unrelated edit.

And then you elected to come here rather than the article talk page. Please, just show some care and attention in your editing. I certainly make mistakes, but when I do, I usually admit them, and I do try to correct them. So start editing cooperatively. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding the links in the first instance is not a revert, has never been a revert, and never ever will be a revert barring sock puppetry. Revert means to go back to something. Rupert was adding, for the first time by him at least, the links. You reverted. He re-added. You reverted. He re-added. You reverted, and then falsely claimed 3RR against Rupert. Then you blanked Rupert's attempt to talk to you on your talk page, but in retaliation you posted to his and then repeatedly reverted when he subsequently blanked your words. :::::Mistakes are easy to apologise for, but actually making good on your apology is a separate issue. Asking for cooperative editing after you have pushed to 3RR is a bit late. Koncorde (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to add my two cents here and say that if you want to be technical on the WP:3RR rule then Rupert1904 has a case against Walter but by continuing on with the revert, you both fail WP:3RR and we wouldn't have this discussion if Rupert put it up to the administrator noticeboard at worse or talked it over through the talk page. HawkAussie (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it's general practice to link the season. A random sample of five different teams from five different leagues all have bluelinks. Don't really know this got to this point. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is good practice. A reader may refer to the honours section without reading the article. It's useful to have the links. I think this is generally good practice for any section in large articles. The whole point of the TOC is to allow readers to skip to sections of interest and they should find relevent links there. Jts1882 | talk 07:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Walter likes to stack these 3RRs up with lots of different people, I am surprised that no admin has ever come down on him hard really hard, 18 bans over the last 9 years? Govvy (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

proposed deletions

Would someone with more time than I have please be able to take a look at the deletion proposals listed here from 23:54 on 13 November to 00:24 on 14 November? I suspect that many of the subjects may meet WP:NFOOTY but don't have time to check now. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Some do, some don't, it looks like GiantSnowman is on it which is appreciated (went to deprod someone and they beat me to it.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Phil Bridger: thanks for this - I have removed all but one of the PRODs added by @BoneHeadHuman: as the articles appear notable. It looks as if BoneHeadHuman is equating 'lack of sourcing' with 'lack of notability'. Those are not the same. Many of these players have had long careers in the top-flights in France, Switzerland or Serbia (so meet WP:NFOOTBALL by some way), but they are basic stubs which need improving rather than deleting. Giant Snowman 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @GiantSnowman:. If there had been only one or two articles proposed for deletion I would have checked them out myself, but I couldn't do so many before I went out this morning. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ask the page watchers

Having a look at the contributions made by Special:Contribs/109.144.26.32, does anyone think this IP address has been used by AH999? The set of edits has been mostly reverting with edit summary "Undid revision ... by (IP address)". Yes or No, all consider this thread now. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 09:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The same pattern for Fcbjuvenil‎, Josepolivares, isn't that an instant indef block now? Govvy (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely not a sock of Josepolivares/Fcbjuvenil (who are Brazilian), as they have been reverting them and are based in London. Doubt it's AH999, not convinced by DUCK. Giant Snowman 10:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

lol, I was looking at the wrong one there, I was reading the IvP6 2804:D55:12:8927:0:0:0:1 to by Fbc, Jose. I really don't know who 109 is. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/109.152.199.131 and Special:Contribs/109.145.136.69 are two of the IP addresses found which have similar editing patterns in the past. But so did Special:Contribs/86.157.236.126 and similar IP addresses beginning with AH999 (see this block log. Whenever AH999 is found, the IPs begin with either "86.1" or 109.1". Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ask @Mattythewhite: who has blocked the IPs. Giant Snowman 17:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

These IP addresses beginning with 86 and 109 could have been edited by anyone since they are reserved for Great Britain and Ireland. the contributions made by the IP addresses from this block log appear to be made on different types of pages, some of them possibly done by another sock but some do belong to the AH999 type of editing, particularly the later ones. Any edit warring with Josepolivares found from an IP address from these large ranges on football articles are likely to be from AH999.

And what I mean about the first part is that the geolocate tool they come from different places (London, Darlington etc.) Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 10:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazakhstan national football team results

Could matches from 1992 to 1994 (2 matches against Libya and Turkmenistan) be include to the article? RSSSF indicates that [3]. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Naughton's date of birth

I have started a discussion on Talk:Kyle Naughton about the date of birth - his birthday appears to be today though sources say it should have been six days earlier. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Category notability

What does anyone think about a category like this: Category:Coombs Wood F.C. players? The parent club (Coombs Wood F.C.) is a non-notable Sunday league football red-linked team. I think such categories are redundant. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, all bar one of the relevant players' articles were categorised in 2016 based on their having played for Coombs Wood before the First World War, so the club they played for was not the current Sunday League club (which was founded in 2012 according to its Facebook page). I have thus removed Richie Anderson from the cat and left the others, because he was essentially erroneously added to an existing cat which didn't relate to the club for which he played. Having said that, the earlier club may be non-notable as well (if this is the same club then they played in the Worcestershire Combination, which was then a pretty high-level non-League competition, but never in the FA Cup), so I am not sure any of this really answers the question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it's useful to categorise by clubs that don't have an article. As pointed out above, in this case whether or not the club is notable is a debatable (and as yet, untested) point, but in any case having the category first is clearly the wrong way round. I think it should be deleted, allowing for possible re-creation if / when an article demonstrating the club's notability appears. Jellyman (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Jellyman - categories are defining characteristics, and it's not defining/notable to play for a non-notable club. Giant Snowman 14:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Struway2:, the creator of the category.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

An incarnation of the club entered the FA Cup three times beginning in 1910–11, at which time they were playing in the Birmingham Combination. The league tables on NonLeague Matters list them as Coombs Wood Tube Works, but both the local press and the FA's past results pages refer to them as just Coombs Wood. A previous Coombs Wood that won that league in 1894 and withdrew from it in 1899–1900 may or may not be the same club.

I think it's been standard practice to create categories for notable clubs whether there's an article for that club or not (pinging @Number 57:, who's done a lot of work on non-league clubs). There used to be a bot that reported on players with clubs in their infobox that didn't have the appropriate category, with a list of non-notable clubs to be ignored. The instructions suggested that "A category should generally only be created if an article on the club would be viable" (my highlighting), not "if an article on the club already exists". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As per the above, I think it would be sensible to have categories where the clubs are notable (even if they don't have an article yet), but not if they are not notable. Number 5 7 11:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Leroy Sané's honours

Should the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup added to Leroy Sané's honours? According to the DFB [4], he left the squad before the final squad had to be submitted to the FIFA on 7 June. An editor claims he won the title because he is on the FIFA lists. --Jaellee (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, Germany only had a squad of 21 players at the tournament [5]. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

But formally, he is the winner of the tournament. I also heard that the commentator on the football channel added this to the merits of Sane. I understand that the second argument is not convincing, but still— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

FC above/in the infobox

So @CoatbridgeChancellor seems to have gone around a few articles so far knocking the FC off club name in the infobox clubname parameter (see here for example). I seem to recall the inclusion of the FC being an accepted consensus from quite some years ago, but wanted to check if I have missed something. My search efforts came up blank but I am on a mobile device at the moment. Koncorde (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. and Arsenal F.C. are both featured articles and do not have the 'F.C.' - whilst I vaguely recollect the consensus you are referring to (although it is not listed here), consensus can change. FWIW I am happy either way as long as it is consistent... Giant Snowman 16:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the heading of the Infobox match the article title (minus disambiguation terms)? It's supposed to summarise key features of the pages subject and the correct name is pretty key. I find the infobox at AC Milan discordant. While not so bad at say Manchester United, which unambiguously refers to the football team, it does seem a rather sloppy and/or informal approach for an encyclopedia. Jts1882 | talk 16:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Manchester United kind of makes sense visually. However Liverpool F.C. looks janky, as it suggests the Infobox is of "Liverpool" which would also be applicable to other infoboxes. I don't believe Coatbridge made that change, so like Manchester United and Arsenal we have some clear discrepancies across multiple editors in all likelihood. I am not overly fussed, just wouldnt like to get into edit wars with people re-adding etc. Koncorde (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And yes, the AC Milan one looks awful. Koncorde (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is “Milan” so bad? In the same way we say “Juventus” or “Barcelona” instead of “Juventus FC” and “FC Barcelona”, the same would apply to “Milan” no? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I never said it looked worse, only that it looked awful. I never said I agreed with us only saying Barcelona, or Juventus either, in fact per my comments about Liverpool my position is already stated that where an infobox could be used to refer to multiple entities of the same name we probably should be ensuring clarity. Preston North End for instance is quite unique, so the inclusion of FC helps discern it other sports or clubs that may share a name although it might not be essential. Milan and Liverpool in contrast are quite different in contrast. Koncorde (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict). In casual conversation, yes, but this is a box providing information about a football club in an encyclopedia. For repeated use within an article we can relax the formality a little bit, but I'd still avoid using abbreviations like Man Utd. Jts1882 | talk 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

While it is an essay and not an actual guideline, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs the infobox title should be the short version of the name (e.g. "Template FC" --> "Template"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Making a seperate wikipedia page that lists the most decorated football clubs in the world

Recently, several media sources have published lists of the football clubs in the world with the most trophies. These include The Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/30-most-successful-football-clubs-19428893) as well as other sources (https://www.90min.in/posts/6391861-research-reveals-the-30-most-successful-football-clubs-in-the-world-in-terms-of-trophies-won?utm_source=RSS), (https://www.givemesport.com/1483017-table-shows-the-top-30-most-successful-teams-in-the-world). Such information has also gained a lot of traction on other news sites such as Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Barca/comments/c3wdfx/list_of_the_worlds_most_decorated_teams_barca_in/?ref=readnext).

I was wondering if this would be enough to create a seperate wikipedia page for similar information, listing the clubs in the world with the most trophies and going by the above sources or other ones recently published on the subject to make it. I think it could be a very interesting addition to our database! What do others think? Davefelmer (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There already is an article but I can't think of its name. It's something like List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes but that's for just English clubs, I'm talking about making a similar table but for all clubs. As of now no such wikipedia article exists for such information. There is a European association football club records and statistics page, which I suppose comes the closest for somewhere such info could belong, but it does not provide any such club list, even under its 'club records' section. Davefelmer (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is that there is one, I just gave that one as an example of what it looks like or is named like. I'd have to look through my edit history as it may have been deleted as a piece of SYNTH or OR. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohh, sorry mate, misunderstood. Let me know if you can find one because I looked around wiki thoroughly several times for such a list, searched through every page it could possibly be and I couldn't find anything. Perhaps like you say, it used to exist and then was deleted, in which case we could use the above sources and others to make a new one :) Davefelmer (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I think it exists to be fair is because there was an edit war about which trophies to include because of issues with official / unofficial leagues etc. The teams at the top were like Finnish and Icelandic teams that have dominated domestically for 80+ years. Someone here will know it. Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There's also problems where different clubs count trophies differently - there have previously been lots of arguments on WP about the status of the county competitions in England, for instance. I'm not sure of the merit of such an article, particularly as the OP's sources don't look super-reliable.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just checked and the 90min post number for Rangers' number of trophies doesn't agree with the number on their WP article, if that's of any consequence. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think what to count would be an issue, you simply go by what all the sources are laying out which is to count all top-level official trophies. The template is pretty clear across the board and goes in line with counts that looked at trophies across one particular continent previously like this one for European clubs (https://talksport.com/football/fa-cup/266887/most-successful-clubs-trophies-won-real-madrid-barcelona-liverpool-manchester-united/). I also dont think a previous list would have been removed due to such debates about leagues as there's no such thing as an unofficial league, or did you mean pro vs amateur/semi pro leagues? I looked up the stats for Finland and Iceland and their most decorated clubs have 47 and 54 trophies respectively which wouldnt put them at the top of the list. Perhaps you were thinking of the Egyptian and Scottish leagues, but those are the leagues at the top of all the sources anyways so the data would match. If people are unhappy that clubs from such leagues lead theirs from more 'major' leagues, well then that's just a by-product of encyclopedic content as opposed to 'fan-made' content where you could just count what you deem 'important' leagues and thus such concerns shouldn't warrant a removal of the data. Davefelmer (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue was the difference between pro leagues, amateur and semi, and then there are eras where there is no national League, instead there are regional leagues, or city state leagues, which then sometimes become amalgamated partially or wholly (this is particularly true for leagues that went through the Communist era, or that pre-date the foundational level of professionalism in the 60's). As there is generally an absence of complete data it comes down to interpretation and rival sources. You can point to one source that says "look, this team has the most trophies" with a pretty list, but anyone with an alternative source could just as easily override the claim. There are then even more complex issues such as unequal cup counts, multiple tiers of both domestic and European competition etc.

I am not saying it isn't achievable, but it is likely to be a hot mess. Heck, people cant even agree about population sizes that are provided by the ONS officially every few years because they'd rather use some alien definition of their city. However if we apply the definition and police the content then we are committing to Original Research and SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely all fair points, I do think that people could agree on what trophies to use in relation to the multiple tiers and unequal cup counts (if by unequal cup counts you mean that some cups have existed for longer). Every source seems to go by the notion of excluding lower divisional competition and cups and only focusing on top tier tournaments ie top level leagues and cups where top division teams can enter. All forms of European and continental competition are always included. So there is consistency there and I believe something everyone would agree on.

The city-state leagues are a tricky point but not many countries have or have had state leagues for a prolonged period of time where a sufficient time under full professionalism hasnt been undertaken and from which a solid count of trophies based on top tier competition could arise. I think only Brazil regularly play regional games today, and while Soviet countries and places like I believe Turkey had regional leagues before (mainly the Istanbul League), there aren't many countries that fall under this umbrella and so we could simply exclude the regionals from the list and specify that it is a list of football clubs with the most top-flight national honours or something to make it encyclopedic and specific. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, we end up committing to OR and SYNTH would be my main concern. Comparing within a country, federation, or umbrella organisation is one thing - but even then you are likely to run into issues around things like the Cup Winners Cup / Uefa Cup / Europa League amalgamation (which aggrieves me to this day, loved the CWC). Koncorde (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it could be confused for original research because we’d be using the data as it is provided in multiple sources. Otherwise, perhaps like you mention, we could maybe make a table for clubs under one particular umbrella like all clubs in Europe under the UEFA banner for instance. Maybe that would work better? Davefelmer (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

David Fretwell at Chicago Sting

Hugman and Mossleyweb both say that David Fretwell spent time at the Chicago Sting (c. 1978), and I'll dig out my Frost book on Bradford City tonight to see what he says, but he is not listed at NASL Jerseys player list and it was not mentioned by Neil Brown. Can anybody find anything concrete either way? Giant Snowman 16:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ENFA list him at both California Sunshine and Chicago Sting. NASL Jerseys confirms California Sunshine in 1978. Might be that he was on the books but never played. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. No mention in Frost btw. Giant Snowman 21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

IP proder

An IP (212.219.94.190) has gone ahead and put a PROD on Northern Irish teams stating that they are not notable despite competing in the Northern Irish Cup as of last season. So just remove them as those articles don't break anything. HawkAussie (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you win a title without playing for a club?

Normally, no but it's possible : Houcine Anafal won 1980-1981 Botola (Morroco) whereas he played for Rennes (France). Mistake ? --FCNantes72 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If the player played half a season with the club, before moving to another club during the mid-season transfer window I would say he won the title. Obviously this depends from competition to competition so the best thing is to read the tournament guidelines. In the case of Anafal, it seems that he joined Rennes in 1979 so it wouldn't make much sense for him to have won a title for a competition that started in 1980 and ended in 1981. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Conor Gallagher was awarded a medal after Chelsea won the 2019 Europa League, despite him having 0 first-team appearances at that point in his career. Giant Snowman 14:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

To be fair Gallagher was on the bench during the final. Anafal's case is a bit strange, it doesn't make sense to be awarded a title when you weren't even in that club during that season at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you're not even with the club how can you win the honour? Giant Snowman 16:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The source provided just doesn't match up at all with his infobox. Either the source is wrong, or our infobox is wrong. to quote "Houssaine Anafal started his career as a professional player with the French clubs, Stade de Rennes (first division) from 1973 to 1981, then with the Quimpérois Stadium (second division) from 1981 to 1983, before returning to Morocco to strengthen the ranks KAC Kenitra in 1983 and then return to the French championship."

This source provides probably a little better summary of his Rennais time, with individual yearly statistics and signing / departing dates. This appears to be reflected over on French Wikipedia which appears to be using the Rennais source, along with this one that I am not sure of its reliability or standing. Koncorde (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I have incorrect information in the infobox, but the source I relied on for the claim he won the 1980–81 Botola is a reliable one (Le Matin) which says: " Il a remporté avec son équipe le championnat national en 1973 et 1981...." Jogurney (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspect the infobox isn't quite right. this appears to give slightly different start and end times to his seasons, which tallies with this source. Meanwhile Le Matin seems to be massively off the mark (and just in case there is any confusion, the source is Le Matin du Sahara et du Maghreb not the more famous namesake from Switzerland). Koncorde (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I did some more searching and no other sources claims he won the 1981 title with KAC (none even indicate he returned to KAC after he joined Rennes in 1979), so I've removed the claim and updated the infobox slightly. Thank you all for your input. Jogurney (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

David Loera notable?

I feel like I'm missing something here. Article has been around since it was made August 2017 but isn't a greatly updated article. I know the USL was/is professional but it appears he played for more reserve teams. Even the reference they have added for one of the teams, states that he signed as an amateur. I tried looking up the player but it doesn't appear he is even Spanish born and that he is actually Mexican, while I know transfermarket isn't the best source but that has him born in America. Is this just a case of an article that was missed, or is there something more here? NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@NZFC: Yeah, he's notable for having played in the USL (now the USL Championship) with Orlando City B. The amateur concern is because of collegiate eligibility in the United States – he can't take money to play for a professional team if he then wants to go to college. Therefore, the USL introduced amateur contracts, I think they now call them USL Academy contracts, so that young players can play in the league and still hold collegiate eligibility. There's certainly some debate over where he was born, but he meets WP:NFOOTY and his career is ongoing; not to be WP:CRYSTALBALL, but with how he's done in college I wouldn't be shocked if he's back with a pro club in the next year or two. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Keskkonnakaitse: thank you for explaining it for me. Was sure USL was professional but didn't know the reserve team level was. The bit about amateur contracts is interesting too. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the article clearly fails our notability guidelines. He's an amateur soccer player who made a handful of appearances in the USL Championship (primarily as a substitute). There is some coverage of his college soccer career, but nearly all of it is entirely routine (much less than US collegiate gridiron football or basketball players), and there is nearly no coverage of his time in the USL (I added a blogpost to the article that was the most in-depth I could find, and it certainly falls short of satisfying the GNG). Maybe it needs to go to AfD, but it's far WP:TOOSOON for this article. Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Gary Anderson (placekicker)

This South African NFL kicker has a fiddly career, but only played soccer at college level. Yet he is categorized with the pro-soccer players. This surely isn't right? Also there's tons of expat players in the American category, as well as the expats playing in America one. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

He's correctly categorised as both a footballer and a footballer - the fact he played only college level football isn't a problem, it would be if he hadn't gone on to play gridiron but if say someone becomes notable for some reason other than football but still played football at a decent amateur level it's still in this project's interest to categorise them properly IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So Category:American soccer players is completely useless for working out how many professional, WP:NFOOTY-compliant players have played in the US? Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever advertised it as being a list of professional players, especially considering you can pass WP:GNG and not WP:NFOOTY and have an article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep, there are many notable non-pro players who are rightly categorised. Giant Snowman 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Friendly Tournaments

Hello, is it possible to indicate victories in friendly tournaments with the national team in the "International Career" section? For example, for Berbatov, Tymoshchuk, Gleb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's part of their international career, so why not? But adding it to the "Honours" section as you were doing last night seems pointless for a friendly competition. Those tournaments are completely invitational, so assigning any success in them to a player is a pointless exercise in ego-massaging. – Pee Jay 07:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This was discssed recently IIRC and it was agreed that friendly tournaments do not beling in the 'Honours' section. Giant Snowman 17:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bronze medal European Championship

Why were my amendments to the UEFA European Championship canceled? Bronze was awarded before Euro 2016 ^[1] ^[2] Fati122 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted?--Echetus Xe 13:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry mistake— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why ignoring me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain me whether I am right or not? I thought (given Euro 2008 and 2012) that losers are awarded medals to the semi-finalists. They are marked on the pages of many players, for example Denis Bergam and others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fati122 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Mourinho

What you said about physiotherapists and others is true, but the coaching staff is rewarded. Look at the photo where Mourinho with a medal after the Cup final^[1] Fati122 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What does this relate to......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume this and this, but it would be better to raise on the article talk page in the first instance, or mention the editors you are trying to discuss this with. Spike 'em (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/how-jose-mourinho-made-himself-wanted-again-man-utd-real-madrid-a9113066.html?amp

Barry Hines

Famous author who also, I learnt thanks to the Greg Davies BBC documentary about him (and substantiated by some sources I've since found), had a minor football career (youth for Barnsley, invite to trial at Man Utd, played at college for Loughborough, and then non-league for Crawley and Stocksbridge). If anyone else wants to/can find anything else then please do. Giant Snowman 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Yel and temporary dismissals

I've posted a message on Template talk:Yel about modifying {{Yel}} to note when yellow cards are accompanied by a temporary dismissal. Just flagging it up here to bring it to the attention of a wider audience... — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 21:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

What sort of functionality would that involve adding? We already have {{sin bin}}, just so you know. – Pee Jay 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, I didn't realise that existed. Everyone can safely ignore my previous message :) — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 00:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of interest, what's the highest level that temporary dismissals are used? Hack (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the FA's release, it is only at grassroots level. I don't think there is any relevance having the option in Wikipedia yet. --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I brought it up because sin bins are used up to tier 3 in women's football, and have been used in this year's FA Women's National League Cup. Obviously it remains to be seen if it will reach the upper echelons of the game. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: I assume the sin bin template does the job for any of the relevant season articles? Hack (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hack: Yes, I think so. I've used it in 2019–20 FA Women's National League Cup a few times. It still looks a little odd to me, but I'm sure I will get used to it eventually. For an example of it being used in the wild, go to 2019–20 FA Women's National League Cup#Second round and see the Brighouse Town v Derby County game. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 21:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Sanchez

More eyes here please as @Mightytotems: is disruptively edit warring over subject headings (LAME, I know) in breach of MOS. Giant Snowman 12:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit war at Algeria national football team

There's a longstanding edit war at Algeria national football team. Could an experienced editor please review and formally warn/mediate as needed. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Israel national football team

I am confused about something, I was looking at the the national page for Israel and there are these dark bars with a title of different qualifing seasons. I look at the code and it says hidden then there is a load more information there, but I don't know how they work, I click on a bar that doesn't expand it, I am confused on how they work. Anyone explain it to me? Govvy (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Click on the "show" on the right... Kante4 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Took a few tries on the right, I managed to expand them, but I don't see any text that says "show"... That's really useful to colour-blind people! :( Talk about a horrible page to work out. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's just very poor contrast. This is a general accessibility issue that will affect many people (e.g. contrast discernment decreases with age). The colours of the collapsible header should be changed or the toggle changed so it has better contrast. Jts1882 | talk 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

is it just me (on phone at moment), or is the ToC on that page a complete mess too? Spike 'em (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, I went to the page because they were just drawn with Scotland for the play-offs, but when I tried to see content both on my mobile and mac-book I had problems, I really hate the collapsible content design on the page, it's so frustrating to navigate, I didn't even realise there is content there to read. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Use mobile view and all the collapsible content is shown; it looks cleaner but is very long. Given collapsible content interactivity doesn't work in the mobile view, it should probably be used more sparingly (I'm sure there are guidelines on this). A lot of it might be better placed in subpages. Jts1882 | talk 16:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The page is set up wrong is the issue. It should be pointing at Israel national football team all-time record for a lot of the content, and likely doesn't require every single qualification campaign to be mirrored on its own page.

As for the TOC, yes it's also broken from 8 onwards it seems. Headings have been put inside hidden sections I suspect, and / or the number of indentations have been done incorrectly because they have been copied wholesale from the main / sub articles they are linking to. Koncorde (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted all the hidden content. For one thing, it violates the MOS as you're not supposed to hide content that can't be viewed elsewhere in the article, and for another it's just an unnecessary level of detail. – Pee Jay 16:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably didn't go far enough. There's still a couple incidences of {{football box collapsible}} which blatantly fails WP:ACCESIBILITY. Hack (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dam PJ, that was brutal! Govvy (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Danny Ings and the likes

During this month, a couple of IP addresses (possibly the same person) thinks that putting the end date of when they last played is correct. This is not definitely the case unless news has come to say they has retired. See Jack Cork or Andy King for example, both has played internationally but the end date is not yet specified in spite of not playing internationally for at least one year. Therefore, the current version of Danny Ings should remain as to the version by Daemonickangaroo2018 instead of the IP addresses which continues to do the end dates for the players. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 15:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert, warn, and then report. Giant Snowman 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Need someone mass revert the bold move

It seem Kj1595 (talk · contribs) has mass move all Albanian / Kosovan club into prefix "KF ", even each article had shown the club did not use that prefix, such as Dinamo Tirana, FK Kukësi, KS Delvina. Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Fox Sports as a source?

Fox News has come under fire a lot for bad news reporting, etc, but what about Fox Sports part of them, should we be using them as a source or not? Govvy (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

All sources are contextual apart from the truly universally regarded. So for instance you can rely on most mainstream news sites and the like for scores, squads, confirmation of news or events or outcomes. However not all sites may have as much reliability or credence when it comes to articles written from certain perspectives and / or objectives. I.e. they may favour a team, or show a bias towards or against certain nations.

Fox Sports certainly is fine for the first part, but if you are relying on them for other factual observations that are perhaps informed by opinion then they will require attribution to the source itself (as is the case in a lot of opinion). But this is no different to ESPN / Sky / BBC or other leading sports news sites.

If they are reinforcing already established comment, or adding substance, you might get away with an inline references rather than direct attribution, but would typically only do so if there were multiple sources saying the same thing (I.e. describing how great a goal was, or that a save was described as "world class") . Koncorde (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

:/ So not blacklisted like the Daily Mail? Govvy (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail is still valid for opinion - however there are inevitably dozens of better sites for the same information that aren't as badly tainted that should be used. Fox Sport, depending on the situation, isn't as bad as that. Koncorde (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

For the most part, Fox News is kept separate from other Fox properties, so there isn't much trouble with Fox Sports. This is especially true for Fox Sports Asia, which provides English-language coverage of some leagues that aren't touched at all by other mainstream sources. Sounder Bruce 21:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of move request at A.C. Milan

Talk:A.C. Milan#Requested move 2 December 2019. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Balloon D'or 2019

I wonder your opinion, did Messi deserve Ballon D'or 2019? David Cok 121 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No, CR7 definitely deserved it more. In other news, this page is to discuss football articles on wikipedia, not a chat room to argue about which player has the nicest hair. Spike 'em (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Although reliably sourced opinions on the matter can be included in the relevant article. What you or I might think is neither here nor there. Actually, I would vote for Virgil, but don't tell anyone. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Inter Milan#Requested move 29 August 2019

I just looking back, and I consider this a bad close, I was sure admins were suppose to close contentious conversations. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RMNAC. They're not recommended but not discouraged if the closer has experience with the RM process. I concur with the close, by the way. Hope you're healing well. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Got two fingers kinda strapped together, but can sorta touch type, way I would describe it, is typing with a limp!! Well I thought I counted 16 support to 12 oppose and a fair number of opposed arguments are floored! Govvy (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Updating stats

Just a brief example of when stats updates go wrong - well meaning IP updates stats at Riyad Mahrez but not the date here, so another well meaning IP comes along and thinks they are correctly updating the stats here. Giant Snowman 11:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Managerial statistics boxes

Couldn't find any previous discussion of this point, so I'll advance this question: In a managerial statistics box (like this one), what should the "From" and "To" dates reflect? I had always viewed it as the hire/fire (or arrival/departure) dates, but @MrLinkinPark333: pointed out that it might be better to use the dates of the first and last game managed. In a slightly different format, the featured list List of Arsenal F.C. managers uses the first suggestion, and I'm pretty sure that most articles do as well. For clarity, this is related to the GA review currently ongoing for Mike Avery. Thanks, Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Cristian López

Any Terriers or Shrews out there? Regarding this subject, two things that i feel need sourcing, him making him the first-ever Spaniard to play for both teams, i sourced and sourced and found nothing :(

Oops, make that only ONE thing to be sourced, found this BBC report mentioning him being the first español to play for Huddersfield (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/23516824)! Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe more help will be requested: while at it, added source for his Huddersfield debut, at Forest, only to read the "damn" match report and find that: 1 - Mr. López was not mentioned once; 2 - the habitual lineups and subs by BBC are not provided (tsk, tsk...). --Quite A Character (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Use Soccerbase for his Huddersfield debut. It'll source his Shrewsbury goal being his first for the club and in English football as well, which the match report doesn't. Don't know why you won't use stats sources to reference statistical content, it's what they're good at. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2:: thanks for the input. I do have a "problem" using stats sheets in anything other than the external links section, but in this case i pulled it off so i think you don't need to bother and source if any further if you wish, i found ENGLISH sources from news articles for the Shrewsbury goal being his first in England (thus, obviously for club) and him having appeared in the Championship against Forest.

Cheers, thanks again. --Quite A Character (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 I-League

I am here to clarify my doubt regarding my edits in 2019–20 I-League. I directly came here, since its about football. If I am in the wrong place, then please guide me.

I made & added Position by round table in the league, as I saw this table being used in European leagues, and it provides any club's league table position history. But someone reverted it saying Absolutely no requirement of such a thing. I didn't add anything wrong or unsourced.
Now, coming to next issue, league table. I saw in La liga the league table was in this form Template:Fb a header. It provides percentage of the change in average attendance of a club. Which is another informative thing. I used the attendances of previous year from 2018–19 I-League. So, all my data and numbers are correct. But, that person undid it again, saying wat are u doing..wat is this..??

Please check the page history and also tell, whether am I wrong or not. S A H A 18:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me? S A H A 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The position by round table is used on some European leagues, and each season there is a discussion about adding it to the relevant Premier League season article, but there has never been a clear consensus to do so. Does the I-League have a clearly defined (and immovable) set of rounds, as without this the table can be meaningless (i.e. will there be a clear point after each round where each team has played the same number of games?). I noticed someone has tried adding the attendance figures to the most recent PL articles; I am not a fan of these, thought there are a few hundred pages using the template. Ideally seasonal articles should be mainly prose rather than just a set of statistics (WP:NOTSTATS). Spike 'em (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: rounds arent cleary mention in I-League website, but the draft fixtures which was released last month have rounds. also this can be seen as "matchdays" when u search ileague on google. 11 teams, so, in each round 10teams play. but there is no clear mention. and i will try to add stuff in the article.
also, regarding the attendance table, what to do? shall i add the template? S A H A 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Timestamps, not signatures.

Hello, please can more users be aware of some stray signatures when updating stats (anyone could do it by accident, I have done that a few times myself). One user has updated a high number of article stats but has left signatures in the infoboxes (e.g. this insertion). This website along with pressing "]] ([[User" in the bar after when you press "Ctrl and F together will speed up the search of any unusual edits. When you see some update below the article titles, you'd know there's something a bit wrong.

I'd seen GiantSnowman noticing this at the start of the day (after British sunrise) but I've noticed far more of it because "This website" above said so. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Kansas City Comets season page creation issues

Hi, I have been having issues with this page being deleted for not having secondary sources and only having primary sources. All of the information I am getting for this page is coming from the team's website and is posted in articles which I am citing. Is there anybody that could give me some advice that would be able to help me with this? There is also a secondary news website that will occasionally post summaries of the same information that I am using for the page. Should I be citing those instead for use as a secondary source? I have not had this issue with teams in other leagues but for some reason people do not like this one. I am also working on a new draft in my talk page using The Project Football Club seasons as a template. Thank you for those that can help, Gatorinator (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The team's own website is a primary source, you need some secondary sources to show that this season is truly notable. From your talk page, you have had at least 2 other articles draftified for the same reason. Spike 'em (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em, What would be considered a secondary source then? Would this website be considered a secondary source?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorinator (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gatorinator: You need to find articles or sources which would help demonstrate the notability of the season. See the requirements at WP:GNG. The Blue Testament is a SB Nation blog, so I don't think that would pass our requirements. Have other publications written about the season? SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Spike 'em & SportingFlyer, This Website, has also posted a few articles about the season, including match recap going just as in depth as The Blue Testament has in their articles. Would something like that work? Thanks for your help, Gatorinator (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL issue?

Howdy hello! I'm not very familiar with football, so I thought I'd bring this here before going further. I recently came across Portugal national football team results (2020–39), which seemed like a big WP:CRYSTALBALL problem to me. Most sports articles I've seen go by singular year, not a wide range. While we could reasonably guess that Portugal's national team might play until 2039, we don't know that for sure. Its the same reason why we don't have articles on the 2040 Olympics. But perhaps this a quirk to how this WikiProject handles things? Some feedback from y'all on whether this is normal, or in fact an issue with WP:CRYSTAL, would be appreciated. I don't have this page on my watch list, so please ping me in replies. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have moved it to Draft:Portugal national football team results (2020–39), as I realized it escaped AfC without review and was quite undersourced. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the logical next page in a series. The previous page is Portugal national football team results (2000–19). Perhaps it needs to renamed something else for a couple of decades, e.g. Portugal national football team results (2000–). Jts1882 | talk 20:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @CaptainEek: Ahoy there. The reasoning behind the time frame is simply because an article for a single season of results is a bit fiddly, and a single article for all the seasons is far too big in most cases. Not sure if a range of 20 years was ever agreed upon formally somewhere like here, but it was definitely adopted for England and Scotland results many years before I got involved here, and does seem to be a manageable size in general. FWIW, the England national football team results (2000–19) was created in 2006 and Scotland national football team 2000–19 results in 2007, without any renames as far as I can see, and these would presumably have incurred the same crystal ball issues as these new ones. In terms of the Portugal article content, yeah 2039 is a long way off and some more references are always helpful, but it's not like it's entirely unsourced and the 2020 game dates listed are pre-planned fixtures already agreed on a worldwide basis. Unless there is terrible incident like an asteroid strike, major terrorism or sudden death of a current player, Portugal will play those matches on those dates. So I'm not sure draftifying was needed since it will be 2020 in a couple of weeks. In terms of the uncertainty over the coming decades, maybe a rename to Portugal national football team results (2020–present) could be considered? Crowsus (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing idea

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bury F.C.

Hello, all. Can some of you please put this article onto your watchlist for the next couple of weeks as, without naming sources, I have good reason to believe that the club in its present form will finally be liquidated next week when the High Court reconvenes. Not good news for English football in general as it has happened before and will undoubtedly happen again. Whether the Shakers can rise from the ashes remains to be seen but, cautiously, there is good reason to be optimistic. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was a bit premature and we now have until the 18th because HMRC are a joke. I've got extended protection on the article, which is a great help. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Times

There is a currently a disagreement in the article of 2019–20 Real Madrid CF season on whether the time zone and the identifier should be mentioned inside the football box. The opposing party says that there is no need to mention it repeatedly since there is a sentence that explains it at the top of the section. But out of comprehensiveness we should have them because the club may play in continents where the timezone and identifier is different.--Sakiv (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the other option with the "text": Times from 1 July to 26 October 2019 and from 29 March to 30 June 2020 are UTC+2, from 27 October 2019 to 28 March 2020 UTC+1 (unless otherwise noted). I feel it is overlinking adding the same data over and over to each time. Not sure what others think. And for the games in another time zone (Asia, America...) we add them as explained above. Kante4 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Start and end dates of spells in the infobox

Hi, according to this (reliable) source Klaas-Jan Huntelaar's spell at Ajax Amsterdam ended on 31 December 2008, so his spell at Amsterdam was listed in the infobox with "2006–2008". This was changed by an editor to "2006–2009". When I reverted that edit and pointed out that the contract ended 2008, I got the answer "It'a long-established. If a player moves in the 2018/19 January transfer window we do not end the previous club at 2018 and the new club at 2019." I can't remember such a consensus. Is it really an established practice to list wrong information in the infobox? --Jaellee (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If it ended in 2008, that year should be displayed in my view. Kante4 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should end in 2008. However, my understanding is that you can only register a player once the transfer window starts, so he couldn't become a Madrid player until January 1st, which means you could argue this means he was officially registered as an Ajax player at the beginning of 2009, even though out of contract. It's a technical point, whether the infobox should indicate registration or contract, although all a reader cares about is games played. In terms of being informative the period 2006-2008 is much more accurate. Jts1882 | talk 15:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You do the years he was contracted, not the seasons. Best example is Diego Costa who was pre-signed by Athletico but only officially transferred January 1st. Infobox reflect his time at Chelsea to this point even if he didn't play and everyone knew he was leaving because he was contracted until that date. Koncorde (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

When a player moves from one club to another on 1 January, we have always displayed it as the same year. With Huntelaar, he moved from Ajax to Madrid on 1 January 2009, and the infobox should show Ajax spell finishing in 2009 and Real Madrid starting 2009. Giant Snowman 09:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Huntelaar would still have been under contract with Ajax until he was successfully registered as a Madrid player on 1 January 2009. His Ajax spell should be shown as 2006 to 2009. The exception to this is if the player is *released* by his old club before the end of the year, they become a free agent, and then signed with their new club in the new year. But that wasn't the case with Huntelaar. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Huntelaar didn't leave Ajax on 31 December, spend 12/18/24 hours without a club, and then sign for Madrid the next day. His contract was transferred from Ajax to Madrid on 1 January. Giant Snowman 10:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would Huntelaar be under contract with Ajax on 1 January? The contract ended on 31 December. Isn't the end of the contract automatically the release? --Jaellee (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, I would assume the contract runs out at midnight 31 December and the next contract begins then. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, GS, I don't think you are correct. When a player signs a pre-contract and the clubs have agreed the fees etc for a transfer at a future date, the contract comes into effect at that appointed date. Now, unless Huntelaar and Diego Costas transfer terms stated "at 11am GMT on 1st January" then the transfers of the players contractually took place at 00:00:00 on 1st January. In almost any other transfer scenario I might agree with you, but in the case of pre-contract (per above) or free transfer (where the contract is assumed to terminate at 23:59:59) you are not going to be correct or would require a reliable source to say otherwise.

For an equivalent real world example, look at car insurance. You are insured to the midnight of the last day. Your new insurance starts from 00:00:00 of the day following meaning you have seamless insurance. Koncorde (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you can't assume that and it isn't insurance. We don't know what time of day the exchange took place but the date of the new contract is 1 January so that is also when the old one ended unless, as mentioned earlier, he was released early and had become a free agent. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. At some point on 1 January the contract moved from Ajax to Madrid. We don't know when and we shouldn't speculate. Therefore displaying the same year (2009)in the infobox to show he left his old club and signed for his new club is what we have always done and should continue to do. If not then we will need to change 100000s of articles, because in my nearly 14 years of editing Wikipedia I have never seen this elsewhere. Giant Snowman 12:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the contract per se in this example. It has more to do with the registration. The point of transfer windows is that you can't register with a new club until the window is open, unless you were a free agent at the closure of the previous window. In this example, Huntelaar would have been registered as an Ajax player with the Dutch federation (KNVB) until Madrid registered him with the Spanish federation on 1 January 2009 (even if the deal had been agreed at some point in December). The free agent example is different because the registration is returned to the player when he is released. If, for whatever reason, the Spanish federation had rejected Madrid's application to register Huntelaar on 1 January, he would have continued as an Ajax player. Ergo he hadn't officially left Ajax until 1 January. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Before I get into wasting my time responding to speculation of how player registration trump's ownership or vice versa, can someone please define what the infobox dates represent?

Registration? Ownership? Season played in? Year played in? Years registered? Seasons registered? Season played up to and including? How does that then work with International matches? What about games played inter-season? Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

For countries whose season runs calendar year (USA, Sweden, Finland etc.) it has been season played. So if a player plays for a club for 2019 season and leaves in November and signs with a new club in November 2019 for the 2020 season, the infobox would show '2019' and '2020' respectively. For countries whose seasons span a calendar year it is registration. As I have said multiple times now, whenever a player leaves Club X to sign for Club Y on 1 January 2020, we have always shown the spell for Club X ending 2020 and the spell for Club Y starting in 2020. Giant Snowman 13:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So why the difference? Swedish window runs January 8th to March. Surely per prior examples being argued for they are an even clearer example of needing their infobox updating? Why is it different for International? And if I am not aware of this January 1st principle of lapping people after all this time etc then it is either not as common as it is made out to be, or has never been established as the thing to do. For instance this historic discussion even references the infobox dates as being the "contracted" dates. So? Koncorde (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The difference with a player in e.g. Sweden is that contracts for players with those clubs would normally expire on 31 December, rather than 30 June. So if a player with a Swedish club lets his contract expire now and then signs with (say) an English club in January 2020, the Swedish spell would be shown as "–2019" and the English spell as "2020–". But a player who was still under contract with a Swedish club and was sold to the English club in January 2020 would have his Swedish spell shown as "–2020", because the registration would not have changed until then. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

To quote GS "For countries whose season runs calendar year it has been season played." which doesn't match what you just said. One or the other is wrong. Koncorde (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1940s / 50s football resources

In the source used for Frederick Alexander (cricketer), it states He was better known as a footballer for Queen's Park Rangers and Charlton Athletic. He was active as a county cricketer in 1951/2, but I can't find anything about him on the web in relation to football. Does anyone have any offline sources that may confirm this? Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No Fred or Frederick Alexander has ever played league football for those clubs or anyone else (ref: Barry Hugman's Premier & Football League Players' Records book) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not listed at ENFA either - he might have been a youth/reserve player, but not a senior league player. Giant Snowman 10:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Using a different search criteria I found Margate history which states he didn't ever play for QPR / Charlton first teams (not sure if this is a WP:RS though). Spike 'em (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you run a check for Alexander Frederick Russell? Sometimes on a rare occasion names have been added back to front. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Only two Alexander/Alex Russells have played EFL football since World War II and neither is this guy. It seems pretty clear that this guy never played league football. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No Alexander in war time football for Charlton Athletic. But there was a F. Alexander at QPR. He played his first match against Portsmouth 10 April 1944. 3 League in total + 1 other appearance. Cattivi (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Football since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cup winners at Wembley Stadium

James.pywell has created this category and added only 14 players to it. By my reckoning (I may be wrong, it's been a long day) there have been around 60 cup finals at Wembley (and that's even assuming we are only talking about the new one), so even allowing for players to have won more than one, there will be well over 600 players who can claim to have been "Cup winners at Wembley Stadium". So even if the missing 90% of eligible players were added, would there be any value in this category, or should it just be CfDed now........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the players he added to the category actually seem to be the Grimsby Town play-off winning team of 2016. Winning the play-offs isn't normally referred to as having been a "cup winner"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Pointless cat. -Koppapa (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Putting it simply, hardly defining.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Now at CfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

[auto3-1] "The England Men's Senior Football Team".

[auto7-2] "The England Women's Senior Football Team".

[3] ttps://rg.ru/2016/07/05/na-etom-evro-medali-vruchat-tolko-pobediteliam-i-finalistam.html

[4] ttps://www.championat.com/football/news-2507020-sbornym-proigravshim-v-polufinalah-evro-2016-ne-budut-vruchat-bronzovye-medali.html

[5] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/how-jose-mourinho-made-himself-wanted-again-man-utd-real-madrid-a9113066.html?amp

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]