Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

List of footballers in England by number of league goals

Hi all,

I'm having a go at attacking this article but would like some input (/help if anyone wants). The current list is not overly informative and is partially missing information therefore I'm looking to redesign it from 1) to 2) but would welcome any suggestions. My main sticking point is do people want large club names or small club names? (I'm aware that I skipped to 7, just wanted to display a longer example).

1)

Name	Nationality	Goals	Games	Position	Seasons	Clubs	Notes
Arthur Rowley	England	433	619	FW	19	4
Dixie Dean	England	379	438	FW	16	3
Jimmy Greaves	England	357	516	FW	13	3

2)

Rank	Name	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years	Clubs	Notes
1	Arthur Rowley	434	619	0.70	1946–1965	West Bromwich Albion (4), Fulham (27), Leicester City (251), Shrewsbury Town (152)
2	Dixie Dean	379	438	0.87	1923–1939	Tranmere Rovers (27), Everton (349), Notts County (3)
3	Jimmy Greaves	357	516	0.69	1957–1971	Chelsea (124), Tottenham Hotspur (220), West Ham United (13)
7	Harry Bedford	326	485	0.67	1919–1934	Nottingham Forest (8), Blackpool (112), Derby County (160), Newcastle United (17), Sunderland (2), Bradford Park Avenue (15), Chesterfield (12)

References

Notes

Thanks. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of the clubs column, don't think we need to pepper the reader with all this info. If they want to find out what clubs they played for they can click through to the player's page. Nor sure the ration columnist necessary either, this is a stat that is barely used in football. You need to include the position column for sure. Include only vital information would be my suggestion. NapHit (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The position column seems fairly pointless given that there's literally only three players on the list who aren't/weren't forwards. These could be denoted by a symbol indicating "player did not play as a forward" and that column removed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So I was trying to think of relevant information and, looking at the Premier League and Bundesliga, I picked the above columns as the ones to use. The reason why I didn't include Position is because, apart from three, they all list as forwards therefore I was thinking of mentioning it in the surrounding text rather than the table. Why I do feel the "Clubs" column is useful is it allows the reader to (a) see an immediate breakdown of the player's career and (b) allow a critical historian to see how I got to the number displayed Felixsv7 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say #2 is better. Years are important to add and the ratio is a nice touch. I'd have the clubs in small and remove the position column.--EchetusXe 05:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-posting this because it was archived but it wasn't entirely finalised and I want this debate to come to a final and definitive conclusion so that we can avoid anymore future issues regarding players' honours

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

---

Player Honours: Should supercups be included in a player's trophy count (e.g. Messi, 2005) if they weren't called up but are still credited with the title by the club?

Summary

Hello, fellow Wikipedian football enthusiasts. I hope you are all doing well and staying safe during these difficult and unprecedented times following the outbreak of Covid-19. I had a query over a recurring and important issue in Wikipedia footballer pages to which I and other users were hoping to find a solution; we have opened this discussion in the past, but although some of us voted, and I personally thought at the time that we had come to a consensus as it had been archived and a majority of users had voted in support of one argument, it in fact was never fully resolved, and a few users, including myself, are hoping that we can vote again and finally come to a consensus in order to avoid future arguments and inaccuracies on wikipedia football pages over similar matters. To summarise what I will discuss in the following paragraphs, for those of you who merely want to save time by skimming them or skipping over them to the final paragraph, the main issue is whether players should be credited with Supercup titles for which they were not called up, even if a reliable source credits them with this title (e.g. their club profile; I know that even reliable newspapers or commonly used sources such as Soccerway or Eurosport, although generally reliable, aren't always helpful when it comes to this, as there can be discrepancies or inaccuracies, and sometimes they can contradict one another). The main player who is the source of this debate is Lionel Messi, who is credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title on his wikipedia page, and in his official Barcelona profile, even though he was not called up for the competition, although this discussion can be applied to a larger issue which is often encountered by editors of footballers' pages on wikipedia.

Background

One of the problems is that in different countries there seem to be different regulations regarding which football players receive winners' medals in different competitions, and there doesn't seem to be much specific information on this, or a way to resolve this lack of facts on this matter. Obviously I know that in English football regulations are very strict on which players receive winners' medals for these titles, and they need to have been at least called up for the national, league, or Supercup final in order to receive a medal, or make at least five appearances in the league. Having said that, I'm not sure if the same rules apply for Spanish football, or any other country's football association, as I also know that in Italian football, things are slightly different, for example. Squad sizes have been limited to 25 players, and 30 medals are issued to a winning team for players and coaching staff – as shown here in an official source regarding regulations for the 2008 Supercoppa Italiana. I do think that when it comes domestic league and Cup titles – excluding England which has very strict regulations on this – that it is safe to say that a player can receive a winners' medal without appearing in the competition, as is shown by title assigning ceremonies (for example the ceremony for the 2017 Coppa Italia final, where Gianluigi Buffon is presented with a winners' medal without having appeared in the competition), but with Supercups, it's a rather different matter. I realise that one cannot confirm who exactly received a medal if they weren't called up for the match, but then again I found a picture of Simone Inzaghi with a 2009 Supercoppa Italiana medal round his neck even though he wasn't in the squad for the final (as can be seen in the picture in this article here from a reliable source like Sky Sport Italia, so situations like these can create problems, although I understand that using photographic evidence can count as original research). In this case, however, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, the main player that we are discussing is Lionel Messi, and whether or not he should be credited with the 2005 Spanish Supercup:

A while back, @PeeJay2K3: and @Aavelarx: had discussed with @Paulinho28: and me on Messi's talk page (archived discussions are shown here and here) that they felt the 2005 Supercopa de España should be removed from his list of honours (while we had disagreed at the time, although at the moment, I think that I am of the opinion that it should be removed), as he was not called up for either leg of the final (see here and here). However, [1]this official Barcelona source mentions that he and Andrés Iniesta are the players with the most honours at the club and lists them as both having won that title; his official club profile also lists this title under the honours section. PeeJay2K3 has argued that he wasn't part of the club's "A" squad at the time, as according to this page and this report (I had commented that while this is an interesting point, I'm not sure that these would be considered reliable sources on wikipedia), he wore the number 30 at the start of the season and was re-registered with the number 19 later on (in a game against Celta Vigo on 20 December 2005, Messi was wearing #30 – see here – and then against Espanyol on 7 January 2006, he was wearing #19 – see here); he also added that players in Spanish clubs' "A" squads had to wear numbers between 1 and 25 at the time, which indicates that Messi was not part of the "A" squad at the start of the season, and that it would therefore be unfeasible to consider the player to have won an honour if they weren't part of the club's "A" squad at the time.

However, although I thought that he made a valid point and that these arguments seemed reasonable and insightful, I didn't have any reliable sources which confirmed this. I tried looking for information on Spanish articles or official La Liga BBVA sources regarding squad numbers in Spanish football and their correlation with whether players were registered with the A or B team and found no such information (also, to make matters more confusing, Damià Abella was on the bench for the first leg of the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he had the number 32 at the time). I do know that the Messi wiki article cites a reliable source from a biography on the player by Balagué] and mentions that: "On 24 June 2005, his 18th birthday, Messi signed his first contract as a senior team player. It made him a Barcelona player until 2010, two years less than his previous contract, but his buyout clause increased to €150 million." This for me is proof that he was a first-team player at the time (especially as the Supercopa took place in August that year, and he made no appearances for the B team that season, while making 17 La Liga appearances and 25 in all competitions despite injury). I also remember that later in August, after the Supercopa, Fabio Capello wanted to sign him on loan after seeing his impressive performance when he started against Juventus in the Joan Gamper Trophy (which Hunter's book on Barcelona, which is cited in Messi's wiki article, also corroborates); moreoever, the Barca Wiki article for the 2005–06 season also lists Messi as being promoted to the first team.

Barcelona have credited him with that title on their official club profile for Messi on their official website, even though he wasn't called up for that match, but there doesn't seem to be a way to confirm that he received a medal, and PeeJay2K3 has rightly suggested that there might be a degree of bias, even though the club's profile of the player is generally reliable, and there doesn't seem to be a better source that contradicts this, even though some sources are contradictory. Moreover, @Anakimi: cited an interesting source from the LFP, the organizer of this cup, which seemed to recognise Messi to have won the title, which led me to believe that he should be credited with it at the time; however, his honours have since been deleted form his LFP profile, so this seems to clear that issue up. With all of this in mind, I wanted to see if we could actually arrive at a consensus over whether Messi should be credited with the 2005 Spanish Supercup or not, so that we can finally resolve this problem, and any future disputes over this, and so that we can use this as a guideline for whether other players should be credited with supercup titles in which they weren't at least called up. Should official club sources be taken into account? Or are sources such as Soccerway acceptable in the case that players did not appear in a particular competition or receive a call-up for a final? Or should they be removed altogether instead? I can see both sides of the argument, so I wanted input from more users.

I know that this is a lot of information and a lengthy discussion, but I hope that this post isn't too long or convoluted; please don't merely respond with "TLDR," as I've been trying to include as much information as possible and to relay events as accurately as possible, and have taken the time out to do this, so I'd appreciate some common courtesy as I also always try to be respectful on here. Please do feel free to ask for clarification if you have any questions, and to the users that I have tagged – @Quite A Character:, @Vaselineeeeeeee:, @Kante4:, @Koncorde:, @Spike 'em:, @Crowsus:, @Jts1882:, @Nintendonix:, @Govvy:, @Davefelmer:, @Mohammadyunusp:, @Mazewaxie:, @Danieletorino2:, @Sadsadas:, @The Almightey Drill:, @GiantSnowman: – please feel free to add any comments, information, or further clarification, so that hopefully we can vote on a mutual agreement, so that this issue can finally be resolved, regardless of our own personal preferences. Also, if we could please vote as soon as possible on whether Messi should be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España (Yes) or not (No), and avoid a situation like the last one, where we didn't actually come to any agreement, that would be great.

Thank you! Best regards to everyone, and please do keep well and stay safe, Messirulez (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Before answering below, I am copying my comments over from the Messi article talk page as points that I believe should be considered. /Start quote:

As there is an edit war going on here. A couple of points:

1. trophy counts based on club counts are in Shaky ground and we know it. But as the "lie" has now been so oft repeated as to be quoted by pretty much every reliable source as a fact, his absence in the two legs is moot. Per prior discussions - the reliable sources say he "won" it. There are no sources that exclude it that I can find.
2. as the Supercup is based on qualification from the prior season and Messi had appeared for the team and scored, he might / is likely considered by Barcelona to have contributed to their appearance in the Supercup, regardless of if he was in the game squad.
3. If Barcelona are the arbiters in this situation, then the answer is Messi won it. If the arbiter is the Spanish FA then someone would need to find their official records of who won it as part of the Barce team. I suspect it is the former.
4. I am not sure on registration laws, but at the time of the Supercup - Messi's appearances may have been restricted due to him not getting his Spanish nationality until the 26th of September. I am not sure if this functionally stopped his appearances entirely for the club, or if this was just an exclusion/ observance to avoid issues with too many foreigners. The sources provided are dead so unable to verify what the exact problem was and haven't had chance to find better ones.

In conclusion; the answer is to err on the side of reliable sources even if it doesn't appear right. The second answer is to try and get clarification from Spanish FA or Barce directly as to what the criteria for inclusion was / is. May even be worth sending an email to a Catalan journalist who may be able to assist / verify the status by checking their archives.

/End quote. Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll

• Yes – Lionel Messi should be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title. (Total: 3)
• No – Lionel Messi should not be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España title. (Total: 8)

Yes

• Yes – Paulinho28 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – If credited with the title by the club. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – I agree he wasn't part of the squad but all these websites credit him with the title. FC Barcelona, Soccerway, and not all of you may agree on me citing this, Transfermarkt. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No

• No – I was initially inclined to keep it because of the LFP source (the organiser of the competition) that credited Messi with the 2005 Supercopa de España, but seeing as his honours are no longer included in his profile, and he was not called up for the match, I have changed my mind and believe that he should not be credited with the title. Messirulez (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – He was not in the squad, simple as that. Kante4 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – @Messirulez: Thank you for tagging me. I read it all you had to say. You make good points but I'm voting No because he was not called up in the squad, its very simple. A player cannot be considered a winner if he does not participate. Remember that incident when some strangers who dressed up as academy players got winners medals. I cannot remember the match but I know it happened in Italy. And for the player Damià Abella, he was in the bench for the first leg, so I think the Supercopa de Espana should be included in the honours section at his article.Sadsadas (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – Unless any photos can be found of him with a medal. Crowsus (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – He wasn't involved in the 2005 Supercopa de España, and he wasn't even part of the Barcelona 'A' squad at the time (squad numbers 1-25 indicate the 'A' squad and he was #30 at the time, and the fact that he changed to #19 midway through the 2005/06 season is further evidence of his squad status changing). If it weren't for the fact that this is Lionel Messi, Barcelona wouldn't be claiming he won a trophy he had literally no involvement in, so if you include one member of the 'B' squad, where does it stop? Why aren't Barcelona claiming that the likes of Rodri, Ludovic Sylvestre and Ramón Masó, who had exactly the same squad status as Messi at the time of the 2005 Supercopa, also won that trophy? – PeeJay 20:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – the fact that reliable sources have taken Barcelona's statistics as true does not override the fact that he didn't play; also, there is no evidence of him receiving a medal, nor contemporary RS saying he was credited with it. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – just clubs either trying to treat all members of the given squad equally or trying to inflate honours. Not even on bench on either leg, no honour in my book. --Quite A Character (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – Thanks for tagging me and taking the time to write out the case as clearly and informatively as you did. I concur with Quite A Character (talk) just above me, it is nothing more than artificially attempting to boost someone's honours haul. If a player has not been selected for the matchday squad of a single super cup final or made at least one of the matchday squads in a two-legged super cup final, he does not get a medal. I do also agree with the point raised by Crowsus though, where an exception can be made if there is photographic or video evidence of a player officially recieving a medal (and not say, hanging around in the dressing room with a medal in his hand because that could easily be a result of a senior player letting him hold it or handing it to him as a symbolic gesture such as Nemanja Vidic handing Giuseppe Rossi his League Cup medal in 2006 which did not mean Rossi suddenly officially won the medal etc). Davefelmer (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Results and subsequent action

So, I'm assuming that seeing as the overwhelming majority of users who have taken part in this poll have voted against crediting Messi with the 2005 Spanish Super Cup title (with No beating out Yes by eight votes to two), that this discussion can now be considered closed, the issue resolved, and we can now proceed to removing said honour from his page? And I'm assuming that the same should be done for players who were not called up for domestic Supercup final matches UNLESS official sources or regulations state otherwise, or there is video or photographic evidence which confirms that they were still awarded a medal? Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Please stay safe and keep well! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it, but maybe we can get more votes. Kante4 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Kante4:; thanks for your response. Do you (or anyone else on here) by chance know what exactly is the protocol now? Is there anything that needs to be done officially to confirm the results of the vote and announce what exactly was the final decision, and how we should proceed in the future? I just want to avoid a situation like the last one, where a vote was taken (ironically at the time no-one voted against keeping the honour, so it's funny that practically the exact opposite happened now essentially) but then the discussion was closed before we were able to come to an official consensus. Thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a response to stop auto-archiving of discussion with no recent comments. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I'm just wondering, seeing as the majority of users seem to be in favour of removing such honours, is there anything that needs to be done officially to confirm the results of the vote and announce what exactly was the final decision, and how we should proceed in the future? Please comment below, thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

{{{nationalteam1}}} for CONIFA teams in Template talk:Infobox football biography?

Please present your opinion regarding this edit. The Székely Land football team is not a national team, but a team representing the Székely Land in Romania. It is not affiliated with FIFA or UEFA. The Székely Land football team does not look like a national team, because it only represents the Székely minority in Romania. 82.78.61.178 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is an unaffiliated national team hence why it competes in CONIFA. So it would have similar importance to those competing for Catalonia or Greenland and their players list their national team caps within their infoboxes. No issue with it. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. My concern it that these are subnational / ethnic teams, not national teams. Maybe a new category could be added in the infobox to have the possibility of including appearances in these teams. 82.78.61.178 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with it in the box as long as its referenced, which that doesn't seem to be. Crowsus (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Liam Burt

Hi, can temp protection be considered please. Not sure if he has actually left Celtic, will check shortly, but there's been a lot of slebbering halfwits dropping by over the last few days. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Cheers, Number 57 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Max Power (footballer)

I am aware that the footballer and Homer Simpson's alter ego in Homer to the Max share the same name but anonymous IP addresses should not be using the joke Homer Simpson sung in the episode. It is just a coincidence that The Simpsons writers chose Homer Simpson's new name as Max Power in the episode and the footballer was born before that episode was made.

In this episode, Simpson was coincidentally named after a TV show he watched but stupidity from the character made the Dan Castellaneta character to change his name to Max Power.

As what Struway2 said to me, "Try not to let it get to you. It's only bored locked-down kids doing the electronic equivalent of chalking rude words on walls." This may be the work of bored people who want to get back to work/education out of their houses.

We had disruption yesterday but it was only reverted just now where I noticed the revert and saw the joke in the opening sentence in the difference between revisions view. That should not happen again given the player once feared he was named after Homer Simpson's alter ego. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

World Soccer XI Templates

I've seen that Lnhbm (talk · contribs) created several World Soccer XI templates by year, such as {{1963 World Soccer World XI}}, and he has systematically been adding them to multiple articles. The point is that no source confirms the existence of such awards or voting. Any thoughts? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously they will need to provide evidence of such teams with ref(s), add it to the World Soccer article and then link back to that in the template. Crowsus (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Display of name

Hi, just wanted to check on the preferred way of displaying the name of Sheffield Wednesday prior to 1929 (when the city name was added). I saw the existing article I was working on there (George Robertson (footballer, born 1885)) had it piped to The Wednesday and, now in doubt, I changed it to that on one I created last week (Robert McSkimming (footballer, born 1888)). I haven't looked at all of the contemporary players, but I know one of the most prominent at that time was (Andrew Wilson (footballer, born 1880)), and when I checked his article, it had the Sheffield Wednesday name, which I haven't changed and came here instead. So for consistency, is it preferable to display the name in relevant articles as Sheffield Wednesday, The Wednesday, or Wednesday (I don't think 'the' was part of the official title either)? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the football club’s official name was “Wednesday Football Club”. At that point, it’s only logical to pipe the article to “Wednesday”, not “The Wednesday” or “Sheffield Wednesday”. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The club was referred to as The Wednesday, as in this match poster, and the article uses The Wednesday Football Club. It sort of makes sense that its The Wednesday football club, rather than the Thursday one. There is also an article on The Wednesday Cricket Club. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

Can we un do the move, there was no discussion for the change, and the editing there, I feel it's getting disruptive now, including the fact that flag-icons were re-added when we clearly have concerns over them. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone?? Govvy (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the page. But I don't think that removing the flagicons is nessercery. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I really don't like the new table, have to scroll horizontally across my screen, the change to have a gallery on the page? Well that goes against WP:GALLERY, table was much better before and the whole article is screwed over in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery which somehow escaped my roving eye before. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The flagicons were long part of this page and were removed without consensus. Adding them back restores the status quo ante. It needs consensus to remove them and none of the prior discussions have achieved anything close to consensus.

While the page move was problematic without discussion, I do like the addition of top scorer by PL club. That is the sort of information someone might be looking for. It could go in a separate article but seems a good fit here, apart from the mismatch with the page title. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And yet, the article is suppose to be for players with over 100 goals. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hence my "apart from the mismatch with the page title". We shouldn't lose sight of what is important about the article. It's a list of top PL goalscorers with an arbitrary cut-off of 100 goals. The top goalscorer part is important, the cutoff a detail. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, jumped the gun with the page move but the inclusion of further information relating to Premier League top scorers does warrant at least a discussion on the title. I did open a conversation about this subject on the Talk: page but to no response. As my pitch for amending the title: it would bring this page in line with the other articles of a similar nature, namely the La Liga and Bundesliga ones as well as allowing for the inclusion of additional tables such as the top scorer by club that was recently added. The 100+ aspect of the table needn't be mentioned in the title, only as a header for the actual table. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be rude, but in my opinion, you have ruined the article, all the chopping and changing, moving the article title without discussion. I don't like the new table, now the images are gone! It makes the article kinda boring, I felt the article was better constructed and did it's job before all the changes. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas of how to clear up the table for most goals without removing the flagicons? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by clear up? If the horizontal stretch off the page, I've removed the nowrap option from the table. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That was exactly what I meant! Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's rude at all but I also don't agree that the table looks worse. The only additional column that I feel that it's missing is one listing the span of years that the player played in the PL but apart from that it gives all the necessary information. I did like the Gallery though and am sad to see it removed Felixsv7 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The gallery was against WP:GALLERY as mentioned above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough Felixsv7 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So the [section] created by BundesBerti with top scorers by team was removed due to its mismatch with the article title therefore I'd like a discussion to change the title to List of Premier League top scorers to allow its inclusion and potentially expand the article with relevant information. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've stuck a move request on List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals. I'd appreciate your input! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Old flags

Just a heads up. I didn't realize the current flag of Wales was only adopted in 1959. So any flags for players playing before that year needs to use the old flag: The flag of South Africa was adopted in 1994, this is the previous one: Northern Ireland only separated from the team of Ireland in 1950. That looks to be a complicated and delicate issue. Do we have an agreement on not using the Ulster Banner even though it seemed to be used from 1953 to 1973? That would seem to be sensible to me.--EchetusXe 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Flag of South Africa, the flag of South Africa was from 1928-1994, and before that is was either or , but I'm confused which one. Ireland seems to be a whole different matter that confused me.Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Wales looks to have had 3 flags maybe, according to Template:Country data Wales. was 1807-1953, was from 1953-1959, and from 1959 onwards. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Ulster Banner is used for Northern Ireland for sports purposes without any great controversy – it is used by FIFA and UEFA for them. Number 57 17:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a section WP:IRISH FLAGS, but that isn't at all clear to me. Looks like it was written for other sports (cricket, rugby), where they have a unified Ireland team with their own flag. I think the Ulster Banner should be fine though- and looks more sensible than the Flag of None. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd imagine there is some sensitivity using Ulster Bannner for Ulster Province teams (e.g. rugby). Curiously Northern Ireland is the only FIFA member without an unicode emoji flag (see here). I've wondered if these unicode flags would be better than using the images. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882 It's because of the Northern Ireland flags issue that it hasn't been created (because doing so would assert the Ulster Banner as the official NI flag). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all!--EchetusXe 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism in association football

With Black Lives Matter such huge news maybe we could work on improving this article?--EchetusXe 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to. Do you have anything specific in mind? I strikes me as being quite long. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it’s way too long. I’d say it could do with splitting into Continents and countries, so maybe just work on Racism in English football or Racism in association football in Europe if it’s easier to start from scratch with a more focused topic. Then you’d want a background paragraph, briefly describing the ethnic makeup of the area and the history, referring to the Rivers of blood speech, major legislation to combat racism, refer to the national front and the BNP. Then the major section on history, maybe split by decades or just three eras I suppose - early history (non-whites players were extremely rare for the first 100 odd years, it just wasn’t a thing people really thought about), struggles of black prioners, modern day. Or it could follow how I structured homosexuality in association football: racism by players, by fans, by organizations. Basically some kind of structure and summarization rather than the bloated glorified list it is now.--EchetusXe 05:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I like to point out that Racism in football redirects to this article, I think it would be better served in the article was on the page I noted. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't find the notability guideline for articles on seasons

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Gheorghe Hagi Football Academy teams season and I was going to comment "Articles on individual seasons should only be created for articles in professional leagues as per......." and then I realised that I couldn't find anywhere where that is set down. Can anyone help? WP:SEASONS doesn't seem to be mention it as far as I can see. What am I overlooking......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:NSEASONS. Number 57 11:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew it would be something obvious :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

RS for top scorers in English football leagues

Hello team. I'm doing a sweep of play-off finals from 1987 to now in all three English divisions and one thing I'd like to note is the top scorer(s) for each team. Soccerway was helpful until it suddenly stopped including them around 2009. I'm sure Rothmans etc books have such information, I was wondering if any of our esteemed contributors could help me with this information? I'm currently stuck trying to source Mendonca as top scorer for Charlton in the 1997/98 season, so that's a start, but as I said, I'd like to do this work across all divisional play-offs for all years, so the "early" ones I sure could use some help with. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's your source for Charlton 1997/98, courtesy of Soccerbase. I have ready access to all the Rothmans yearbooks so give me a shout when needed. Are you looking for goals scored in the league only or in all competitions? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mattythewhite fantastic, thanks. Both league and "all competitions" would be great, I've been mainly limited to league goals with the sources at my disposal,but the more the better! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mattythewhite! Could you check something for me?

I've been reviewing List of English football first tier top scorers and seen that currently its list is not optimised therefore I was looking to bring it in line with Premier League Golden Boot using the format that I've provided below. In trying to find an accurate list of top scorers by league season I came across a discrepancy on List of English football champions where Jimmy Ross is said to have scored 24 goals in 1889-90 however I believe this includes FA Cup goals as it is stated to be 21 goals by Michael Slade - sourced below. I also wanted to see how many games each player had played in order to calculate the Goal:Game ratio but I'm not sure whether Rothman's provides this information. Could you help with either of these?

Golden Boot winners

Season	Player	Club	Goals	Games	Rate	Ref(s)
1888–89	John Goodall	Preston North End§	21	21	1.00
1889–90	Jimmy Ross	Preston North End§	21	21	1.00
1890–91	Jack Southworth	Blackburn Rovers	26	22	1.18
1891–92	John Campbell	Sunderland§	32	26	1.23

References

Felixsv7 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Expatriate sportspeople category

Ali Alaaeddine was born in Kuwait, and played there until 2017. He was born to Lebanese parents, and never got Kuwaiti citizenship (as Kuwait doesn't allow dual-nationality). Would it make sense for the player to have the category Category:Lebanese expatriate sportspeople in Kuwait, despite him being born in the country? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that's sensible, but that category may still have WP:SMALLCAT issues. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. SMALLCAT specifies that the category is ok as long as it's "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which, in this case, is Category:Lebanese expatriate sportspeople by country of residence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Stockport County F.C

Unsure if I can put this here but I am looking for some people from this project to give me some assistance with editing the article Stockport County F.C.. I'm looking to make it a FA, and a lot of editing has been done to the article recently. I have put the article back into peer review and have included links to all of the older notes. There is a lot to read through but it gives you an idea of what has already been discussed/covered. Any advice would be appreciated. From advice I have been given I understand that the article needs to go through a GAR first before going back to FAC but if it can be made to FA standard then passing both shouldn't be a problem. Wna247 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an article to be a GA before it can go to FAC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was because as the article is a GA but has been significantly cut down that's why a GAR was suggested Wna247 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed it recently at FAC and a lot of changes were required and were made. I know it's at GA from a while ago, but I think it's certainly in need of some more reviewers' eyes before it can be re-submitted at FAC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

IP mass adding social media

There appears to be an IP mass adding social media profiles for various footballers. I can roll these all back for now but I wanted others aware. Jay eyem (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a problem in adding these? What is the problem? If it's a problem, why do we have a template for these? --SuperJew (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I don't know why the templates exist, though. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Official accounts can be added under WP:LINKSTOAVOID Hack (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website […]" and "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three." Robby.is.on (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the bit of WP:ELOFFICIAL that people often miss, "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable". Which is a good reason why social media profiles shouldn't be mass-added: if a subject's Instagram account is just pictures of him with mates and family, it shouldn't be linked. All the templates do is make sure the links are formatted consistently when they are appropriate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: please note that just linking me to WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which says "one should generally avoid providing external links to 10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram) [etc.]" doesn't explain what the problem is in adding such links. It one shouldn't do it, not why not to do it. Furthermore as Hack pointed out, per the page you linked there's exception "for a link to an official page of the article's subject" and therefore links to a player's official social media page (which can easily be told through blue check verification systems), don't fall under that recommendation.

Per your second part regarding WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, once again the wording is a recommendation. Also, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" goes well with a social media account - it provides unique content (not all about the sports thing the player does, but rather more into personal life etc), while they are usually not linked from club/league websites, especially not prominently. I do accept Struway2's claim that the social media profile will usually be non-notable and for that reason shouldn't be mass-added (and I want to point out the emphasis on mass, meaning that there are cases it could be relevant).

And Struway2, I do understand the point of the template to make sure the link is formatted correctly. My point was of course rhetoric, pointing out that since we have a template for it, there must be cases where it's relevant (on the flip side we don't have a template for Daily Mail links).

I hope my point is coming across and it doesn't sound obnoxious. I just think it is important in discussions to understand the reasons behind and not blindly go after guidelines, especially when they are worded as recommendations. --SuperJew (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: please note that just linking me to WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which says "one should generally avoid providing external links to 10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram) [etc.]" doesn't explain what the problem is in adding such links. It one shouldn't do it, not why not to do it. Struway2 already pointed the most important reason mentioned there: the content that players have on their social medias profiles tends to not be entirely relevant to their career which they are notable for. And there's also this bit – "clutter", "undue emphasis":

However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.

I hope it's clearer now. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Attendance

• A few questions here, for season page articles, are we putting in the number 0 as the attendance or a word like Null, or N/A ?
• Also, how does average attendance work now?

Govvy (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In the A-League season page, we aren't including the behind closed doors games in the average. They are written as 0. We had a discussion about it here. WDM10 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that bit of that conversation, so it seems we are setting average attendance to all the games that had an attendance. We probably need a lot of added footnotes for that. heh. This season seems so weird and watching that Spurs Man U game earlier without the crowds had a really weird feel. Govvy (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah definitely. By the way, that conversation was in the Aussie task force. WDM10 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It was also agreed upon on the Italian wiki for matches behind closed doors not to count towards the average attendance figures. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Phil Dwyer

The article is at GA Talk:Phil Dwyer/GA1 but the nominator hasn't got the time to improve it to get it up to standard. Does anyone want to step in and complete the process?--EchetusXe 12:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be willing although I think that Kosack should have the credit for it though... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Elite One and 2019–20 Nigeria Professional Football League

Would someone from FOOTY mind taking a look at these articles? They might need a page move to 2020 Elite One and 2020 Nigeria Professional Football League respectively for naming consistency reasons since 2019 Elite One and 2019 Nigeria Professional Football League already exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Leagues in certain countries often change season formats from time to time; it seems that Cameroon switched to a biennial schedule in 2019 ("This was the first season in the Elite One to use an October–May schedule since the 2011–12 season.") There doesn't have to be consistency among all seasonal articles, the important thing is that the range of the year(s) in the season title matches the years the competition is being played in. For example, the 2019 Elite One was fully played in 2019, while the 2019–20 Elite One began in October 2019 and will finish in March 2020. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The only exception to the aforementioned statement is if the league brands itself differently. For example, for now, the UEFA Euro 2020 continues to be branded as such even though the competition will be held in 2021. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case for these two leagues, then that's fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kit creation request

Could somebody please create the kits from the 2000 AFC Asian Cup Final between Japan and Saudi Arabia? They look like this. WDM10 (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10:  Done (The kits were already created, I just had to search them on Commons). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks. Do you know of any other details (e.g. man of the match) or sources about this match? WDM10 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ajdin Hasić

I moved to draft space for now, as I thought the article was good enough for there. However when I do that, should the redirect be deleted? Govvy (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it will serve no purpose.--EchetusXe 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, as Wikipedia doesn't like cross namespace redirects. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I really need to remember that for next time, have tagged it R2, cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Reserves and Youth page for Kerala Blasters

Some editors have created two separate pages: Kerala Blasters Youth and Academy and Kerala Blasters FC Reserves. I do not think they are notable enough to be separate pages, considering there is no notable academy either. Coderzombie (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As you said that Kerala Blasters does not have a residential academy,inorder to prove that I have already given a link which proves that the club opened its first ever residential academy in 2019..It is reported by the official I league website.For further verififation I contacted the former youth coach of Blasters and he also said that.It was opened recently and most of us dont know that.The academy is managed managed by Blasters and Peeves group.Also there was more content in the youth section than the past as Blasters started a new youth programe called KB Young Blasters.New technical director was appointed.Everything is said in the article briefly.The youth sector have 3 teams from 3 age groups,and participates in 3 .I created the seperate article ,because of the reason that now the youth system is completely seperate from the reserves.If you dont think so,kindly check the page again and verify the proof..And still if there is any please just let me know first before taking any action so I can make modifications as per your advice..Please just let me know before taking any action like the previous one. Shahoodu (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI all, AfD for the youth team started here. I think reserve team may be notable, as they play in third tier. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 I agree with you. This should be combined into Kerala Blasters FC Reserves and Academy like other Indian clubs like Bengaluru FC Reserves and Academy and NorthEast United FC Reserves and Academy. Coderzombie (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting admins to change Kerala Blasters FC Reserves into Reserves and Academy. Shahoodu (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

fchd.info

Hello good folks. I sincerely apologise in advance, but could you all let know if fchd.info is still considered WP:RS? I intend to use some of its great coverage but I anticipate that someone looking at it for the first time will be like "WOAH, .txt files!" The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it is a reliable source. Number 57 21:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, but do we have any discussion I can point at? And if we don't, maybe we need to start a discussion right now...! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This one is probably helpful. This archive has a couple of mentions of it being accepted as a reliable source. Cheers, Number 57 21:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Grantham Town F.C. Grantham Rovers?

I wanted to ask, was Grantham Town also known as Grantham Rovers in the late 1890s? I just edited Tom Morris and it says he played for Grantham Rovers. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably not according to fchd.info. According to them, a club called Grantham was a founder member of the Midland Alliance in 1892, but didn't finish the season. They joined the Midland League in 1925 and eventually changed their name to Grantham Town in 1987. A Grantham Rovers joined the Midland League in 1891 and left in 1897, so this fits with the Morris article. fchd.info don't link the two clubs but the Rovers entry is in the quarter century gap from the early Grantham to the late one. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I wondering if the timeline suggests that Grantham FC folded and restarted as Grantham Rovers to fold again... Could be some link there, but that would require some other evidence I guess. Govvy (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

They aren't the same club according to The Football Archives, a site run by a Grantham fan (so you'd expect it to be right). This site has Grantham Rovers competing in the Midland Counties League from 1891 to 1897 (as per Jts above) and Grantham Town in the Midland Amateur Alliance from 1891–1893 and then the Grantham and District League for the next two seasons. Number 57 17:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Another question, does Grantham Rovers deserve a stub article? Govvy (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think so. The Midland League was one of the major leagues outside the Football League at the time (and provided several of its early additions). They also played in the FA Cup (it's not on the FCHD, but you can see records in the FA Archive – they made the Second Qualifying Round in 1891–92 for example). Number 57 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a little bit of a stub Grantham Rovers F.C. Govvy (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Question related to information on footballer's Infobox

Hello, everyone. I have come here to know an important thing related to information on footballer's Infobox. Which source or website is considered as the most verified and reliable one for information of a footballer (such as appearence and goals count)? I will be obliged if you guys help me by answering this question and providing the most reliable source. Thanks! – Waraka Saki (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This would depend on where and when the footballer played. Hack (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hack: What about currently active footballer who plays in European Leagues!? – Waraka Saki (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, that depends on the league. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: 1) Is there any source or website from where we can get accurate information for all teams, leagues and players? if not then 2) Kindly can you share sources or websites for different leagues? – Waraka Saki (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It really would be easier if you just said which specific league(s) you were looking at........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I'm not working with any specific league, instead I'm working with footballer from different leagues all together. So, It will be benefited if you guys provide me with sources or websites for different leagues (or only a specific one which provides accurate information for all leagues). – Waraka Saki (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links has a good few. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Thanks. As there is no source (here) for countries like Albania, Belarus, Finland and also Asian countries like India, Bangladesh and others, can I go with soccerway.com's information or statistics for these country's players? – Waraka Saki (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping, I watch this page. :-) Yes, I think you can use Soccerway. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, I want to know. For a specific information if different websites provide different statistics, then which one should I take? For better understanding, I'm giving few example in a table below (all information are without play-off matches, as on Wikipedia only league matches count):

Section	Wikipedia			Soccerway		Soccerbase		BDFutbol		Transfermarkt (with detail information about every mactches)
	Apps	goals		Apps	goals	Apps	goals	Apps	goals	Apps	goals
Rodri's Villarreal CF B	39	1		41	2	no information		39	1	40	1
Dennis Praet's Anderlecht	139	20		139	20	106	14	no information		104	14
Nacer Chadli's Twente	84	25		84	25	77	23	78	23	78	23

If a single reliable source supports all the data, you can use it. But you can also source individual seasons from different places like in this example: [2]. Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source here. For Dutch and Belgian league stats I would not recommend Soccerway because it does not differentiate league playoff matches which we do; WorldFootball.net does that. I will correct Chadli's article now. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Here (with a source of soccerway) in league section, play-off matches are counted as league matches (as soccerway doesn't differentiate league and playoff matches). But on WorldFootball.net it isn't. As we put play-off matches in "others" section, can we change it to that? If yes then Dennis Praet's total statistics for Anderlecht will also change from 139 apps and 20 goals to 104 apps and 15 goals. - Waraka Saki (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most reliable source for a given country is the league's own website (see the Premier League for example). Other than that, I know of fupa.net for German players (especially useful for teams in the lower divisions, such as the 5th), and tuttocalciatori.net for Italian players (same idea as fupa.net). My edits personally are mainly regarding Lebanese football so, for me, the most reliable sources would have to be national-football-teams.com and soccerway. As Hack and Robby pointed out, it really depends from country to country. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Fupa is the same as transfermarkt, it is user generated. Everyone can make an account and add stats for a specific team. Kante4 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kante4: Ah, I was unaware of that. I thought that FuPa for the German lower divisions was the same as tuttocalciatori for Italy or footballwebpages.co.uk for England. Do you know of any reliable databases for non-pro German divisions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

For Belgium, those "Playoff I" matches can be counted as league matches, I think, but not "Playoff II", "Playoff III" and "Relegation", I think. You can see all the different extra matches here when you click on the season dropdown and you will also find that the format has changed from season to season. It's all bit complicated with Belgium, unfortunately. :-/ Robby.is.on (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Robby.is.on, Hack, ChrisTheDude and Nehme1499 for helping me. Have a good day. - Waraka Saki (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Help from the WP:Footy community please

Ortizesp (talk · contribs) works hard creating many-and-more footballer articles when a player plays their first eligible game, per WP:NFOOTY. However, he often writes the prose under the heading Professional career without any evidence that the player has signed a professional contract, and states that they made their professional debut in the game in question. On many occasions, in France at least, the player is playing on an amateur contract for the second team when he makes his senior debut. Often the player does go on to sign a professional contract, and these (in France) are the ones I find when sources become available - eg Mattéo Ahlinvi, Faiz Mattoir, Alexis Beka Beka from the last few weeks. These are the easy ones to find. There are many young players who don't go on to sign a professional contract, but move into lower leagues as amateur players, and finding these articles to correct them is hard.

Strictly speaking, calling a footballer a professional when they have never signed a professional contract is a BLP violation (in my view), and it's these I want to be able to track down and correct, rather than waiting for a (potential) news article regarding a professional contract signing.

I made a request on Ortizesp's talk in March 2019 asking that they note this and take care to use the correct terminology in future, however all three articles listed as exampled above were created after that date.

So I'm looking for help with two things, please:

• help from users experienced in searching wikipedia to find articles that Ortizesp has created which have the term "professional debut" or the header "Professional career" in them.
• support from the community to ensure Ortizesp creates these articles correctly in the future.

Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players the heading should be "Club career", not "Professional career", that much is certain. There have been a bunch of articles where I've made that correction along with other fixes, such as correcting ranges of time to using en dashes. To be honest, I have been hesitant to bring up these issues because Ortizesp is a prolific contributor who has received a lot of criticism for things such as page moves and I didn't want to frustrate them too much. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey team, I'm hearing this loud and clear. I'll avoid professional in the lead unless I find a source that says they signed a professional contract, and will change the first paragraph title from "professional career" to "club career". I use templates to make things easier, so it's just a matter of changing the template. I can't promise that I won't ever do it again because old habits die hard, but you can just change it or ping it - it's not malicious. When they debut, I think it's technically their "professional debut" - ie debut in professional match =which I think is significant because it's what notes that they pass WP:FOOTY. Let me know what you think.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with it being called their 'professional debut' even if they haven't signed a professional contract as per Ortizesp's argument, though 'Club career' should be used instead of professional career, especially since a lot of players aren't professional for the entirety of their career. SFletcher06 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Ortizesp:. I prefer "senior debut" or even better "first team debut", which is what reliable sources usually call it. It is not, unless a reliable source states so, a "professional debut". Gricehead (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted, I'll make the change. If you do notice me doing it going forward, feel free to ping me. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gricehead: - I agree with SFletcher06 and Ortizesp regarding "professional debut". It's a perfectly legitimate terminology - this is the player's first game in a professional match (and as said the passing bar for WP:NFOOTY). A "first team debut" or "senior debut" means the first time a player makes an appearance with the first/senior team and could technically refer to a pre-season match too (which is not professional). Or a cup match which isn't against a professional team, which is not counted as a professional match as far as I remember (and doesn't rate for the WP:NFOOTY passing bar). --SuperJew (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I hear you, and will of course go with consensus, but this is an English language issue rather than anything to do with notability or the type of game. Professional debut simply does not mean debut in a professional match, it means debut as a professional. Gricehead (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Five-point threshold Premier League

Liverpool has already become a champion, but some players have not played 5 matches in the championship. If they play the remaining matches before this threshold, will they be awarded a medal? David Cok 121 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Joint-preparatory tournament

In Lebanon, there are two "league cups" (other than the league, domestic cup, and super cup): the Lebanese Elite Cup (for the top 6 teams of the previous league season), and the Lebanese Challenge Cup (bottom 6). For this year only, as the past league season was abandoned after only 3 games, the federation decided to do a preparatory tournament during the summer, which acts as a qualifier to either the Elite or Challenge Cup based on the club's position. The tournament isn't really that long (3 groups of 4 teams, one leg), and will not be repeated in the future: does it warrant its own article? Or should it be copied and pasted in both the 2020 Lebanese Elite Cup and 2020 Lebanese Challenge Cup articles? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Liverpool Premier League honour

So, with confirmation of the Premier League trophy finally going Liverpool's way possibly as soon as later this evening, there's going to be a deluge of people adding the title to players' honours sections. What are we thinking we should do: keep them omitted until the end of the season once the medals are actually awarded, or allow them to be added, with appropriate sourcing, to players who have reached the five appearance threshold? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If they're getting a guard of honour (happening in the next match versus Manchester City) then they can be "officially" be given the honour for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchetusXe (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the horse has bolted, anyway... Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would personally add the honour to all the players who have played 5+ games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, is the requirement only five games these days? I didn't know that. Seems a bit mad that a player could make five sub appearances constituting ten minutes of play and yet still get a medal but if those are the rules....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

They lowered it to five in 2012–13. It's actually even laxer than it sounds, as the rule is now "the club gets a quota of 40, everyone who made five playing appearances gets one automatically and the club can allocate the remainder as they see fit". Asmir Begović notoriously got one a couple of years ago despite playing only twice in the entire season as Roman Abramovich wanted to reward him for the frustration of being on the bench in every game, and it's hypothetically possible that a member of the non-playing staff could be given one if the club deemed that (e.g.) a coach was particularly responsible for the success. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not even entirely sure they get a medal... I know in the past, only a certain amount of medals were awarded to the club to diseminate. However, we usually award those with 5+ as having won the championship. I don't see an issue with it being now, considering lots of reliable sources have commented on them winning the league. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say put those who have met the threashold in now, and if others meet the crietia later on in the season then add it to theirs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)To clarify, I don't have a problem with us putting the honour on a player's article if those are the rules, I am just amazed that those are indeed the rules! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I presume the "or anyone else they deem fit" clause was introduced to prevent a repeat of the kind of gaming we used to see when (for example) Arsenal brought an obviously unfit Martin Keown on as a sub for the last two minutes of each of their last few matches to avoid the embarassment of a club legend not getting a medal. I suppose where it gets tricky if we add the medals now rather than at the end of the season is how we handle people who subsequently meet the threahold. With the title clinched it would be completely reasonable for Klopp to rest all the big names and allow the youth players to play the rest of the season to gain some experience, so it's eminently possible we'll have a lot of "title winners" who played no part in winning the title. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

For example @Mattythewhite: Caoimhín Kelleher has not played once for Liverpool in the League this season but has the honour added. I am sure there are many other examples. JMHamo (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'll keep an eye out for ones added inappropriately. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that the user who added it to Kelleher did so by cross-citing three sources: the league table, Kelleher's appearance stats from Soccerbase and page 56 of the Premier League handbook (which upon closer inspection turns out to be part of the season's fixture list). Not sure how the user synthesised from that that Kelleher would receive a medal...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I just removed it from Andy Lonergan, who has literally not played a single minute of football for Liverpool as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we taking it as a general rule for all leagues that 5 appearances = honours? For example the EFL?--EchetusXe 10:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I am guessing that each league publishes its own regulations somewhere online, like the PL does, but I wouldn't know where to look. I also wouldn't know how to go about researching what it might have been 10 years ago, let alone further back...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: It was me who started using the three sources you mention to cite the Premier League honours, and seemingly that editor just decided to copy what I was doing and add it to players who haven't made five appearances. Also, page 56 of the Premier League handbook lays out the criteria for the awarding of medals, under the heading "The League Championship". That's page 56 of 350 of the PDF, by the way.

@EchetusXe: I've generally gone by 10 appearances for EFL honours as it's a longer season, but that'll be a whole other can of worms! Mattythewhite (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: - gotcha. I must have been looking at the page numbered 56 in the actual document. Sorry for the confusion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, I am thinking it would make sense for List of Premier League winning players to only be updated after the season has finished, once we know *definitively* what Liverpool's medal haul is and to give the Prem time to update their player profiles with the titles. I've already reverted the page a few times today so I need to keep my fingers away from it! Mattythewhite (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems safe to make a reasonable assumption that most clubs would give a medal to most players who have been a part of the matchday squad at least once, especially 2nd choice keepers who, whilst they may not reach the threshold of appearances, are nonetheless a vital part of said squad. douts (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable assumption=OR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent results on national team pages

Two IPs started "fighting" in the Italy national football team article over whether or not certain matches should be included in the upcoming fixtures. To solve the issue, I removed all the "recent results", replacing the section with a "Records and fixtures" section (see FA articles such as Belgium national football team). The logic being that recent results violate WP:RECENT. Both IPs reverted my edits, putting their own respective version of the section. How should we deal with this? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I have requested a page protection for that article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Ok, thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Just have a look at Germany, Spain and other national football team articles. They have exactly the same section about results and fixtures. It is the correct style to use. Why not for Italy?--79.43.108.133 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Because Germany, Spain, and other national teams are not Featured Articles. Less than 0.1% of articles throughout Wikipedia are FAs, meaning that the ones that are, are of the highest standard. The only three football national team articles that are FA are Belgium, Scotland, and Peru (neither of the three have the recent results listed). The reasoning for not having the recent results is WP:RECENT, since recent results are information that can change from day to day. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My expetation you will remove that section from each National football team as it's done for Italy.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. I'm interested in the Italy national team, and have it under my watchlist, because I'm Italian. I have no intention of fixing all 200-ish national teams. I'm not stopping you from doing so if you are interested. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'll do that. As I said I consider that section you have removed pretty important, even tough we have already it into the specific page which includes previous years result. Obviously I did not mean to fix all 200, but at least the most important, including Germany, Spain and England for example.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In "Wikipedia terms", Germany, Spain, England, etc. aren't the most important national teams. The most important ones are the ones that are either Good articles or Featured articles. The "strength" of a national team in real life doesn't determine its importance Wikipedia-wise. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Article quality and importance are 2 separate ratings. Spike 'em (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WP FOOTY-wise, all national teams have the same level of importance. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Now speak with Riktetta.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Nations League

New UEFA calendar has been confirmed for each league (A, B, C and D). Each group for each league has to be updated.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Stage	Round	Dates
League phase	Matchday 1	3–5 September 2020
	Matchday 2	6–8 September 2020
	Matchday 3	10–11 October 2020
	Matchday 4	13–14 October 2020
	Matchday 5	14–15 November 2020
	Matchday 6	17–18 November 2020

Ok, done by S.A. Julio.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Kieran Richardson

I wanted to find a source when Man U signed him, a 2001 source, however I wasn't having much luck in my google searches and strangely the Man U season article doesn't mention signing him. Anyone able to help? Govvy (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"KIERAN Richardson celebrated his 18th birthday on Monday ... but he became a man on Wednesday.

"That was the night when the precocious young

"He only appeared for the final three minutes of the Reds' Champions League win over Olympiakos, as replacement for the superb Seba Veron - but then who remembers David Beckham's debut? Richardson - skilful, tough and fairly quick - has been earmarked for great things ever since he arrived at Old Trafford as a 14-year-old, nicked from West Ham's excellent youth scheme." Headline: Special K comes of age, Newspaper: Manchester Evening News, Date: 25 October 2002, Author: Stuart Brennan. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how that's suppose to help, you haven't provided a url source. Govvy (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Not all sources have to be urls. --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

According to redstat.co.uk, he signed a trainee contract with Man Utd on 2 July 2001, then a professional contract on 21 October 2001, his 17th birthday. – PeeJay 17:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What redstat.co.uk also shows is him playing for Man Utd's U17s in 1999/2000 and playing for them regularly in 2000/01, which means what our Wiki page says about him joining in 2001 is wrong. Those stats are consistent with TheBigJagielka's MEN source above, that has him nicked from West Ham at 14. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

When I looked at his article this morning there was a lot of "citation required" tags. I've been through it a little bit, but certainly needs a bit of help to clean it up. Govvy (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of English association football clubs winning major honours

This is likely to be reviewed soon. An opinion from members of this project would be valuable, whether it is accepted or declined. The article name is just a decent shot at naming it. That can change easily enough,. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't keep this article. The definition of a "major" honour is arbitrary, as far as I can see, as there is no reason given for the omission of super cups such as the Community Shield, UEFA Super Cup and Intercontinental Cup. Also, although the UEFA Cup/Europa League is considered the "spiritual successor" to the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the status of the Fairs Cup is debatable. The whole concept of the article is flawed to me. – PeeJay 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: If you have not already would you mind adding that comment to the draft? Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I have taken your thoughts on board, and declined the draft with a recommendation that they discuss it here with the project. There may be work that can be reused or another solution may arise. Thank you for your help. Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would have expected a few more people to comment before we made a decision, but no problem. – PeeJay 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: An AFC 'decline' is perfectly reversible, and, ideally stops the contributing editor from waiting fruitlessly for a review. It's by no means a big hammer. What I'm hoping is that a useful discussion happens. Even an AFC rejection is reversible, and reviewers are happy to guide editors to a useful outcome. Fiddle Faddle 21:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would rename to List of English association football club honours by year and keep. The chart is similar to one that I have in an old soccer encyclopaedia and the article gets past WP:NOTSTATS IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We have List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won already. -Koppapa (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a mess - I think there could be some selective merges there. But yes, it is duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• "major honours" is a WP:OR. Who define which is major which is minor. Also as other stated, it overlap with other existing list. Also may be a WP:Fancruft. Matthew hk (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Is "major honours" any more WP:OR than "honours"? The latter is used in many articles, albeit with its own problems. Anyway neither is need as this list is simple competitions won.

Instead of the FIFA world cup column, I have an "others" column which could include shields, supercups and the Fairs Cup.

I don't think "major honours" is OR.--EchetusXe 07:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Good shout, but odd how they've decided the charity/community shield is not major but the UEFA super cup is? i think sky broadcast it don't they, so no reason to exclude for that reason. maybe due to the amount of shared outcomes making it a bit cumbersome to display? But on the main point of the article, surely this 'Major Honours' draft is too much of an overlap with 'List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won'?? Crowsus (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

One off competitions such as the Football League Super Cup are excluded as the lack of an established history diminishes their historic importance. Single match competitions between just two sides, are comparatively easy to win and means that they are held in lower regard than other competitions. The UEFA Super Cup and Charity/Community shield are often cited as "glorified friendlies", (as discussed in the Status section of the Community shield article here FA Community Shield) and UEFA themselves do not consider the Uefa Super Cup to be one of their major trophies [3] [4]. For these reasons no articles on the subject include the charity shield as a major competition and many also exclude the UEFA Super Cup. I've included a few links to "Major Trophies" articles here. [5][6][7][8] If it would help, I could include a section on the definition of Major with an explanation on exclusions. I do think that there is an important distinction between major competitions, which is not covered in List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won, and suggest that the title of the article could be changed to "List of English association football clubs winning major trophies by year" to avoid the problems with the use of honours. Redpolar (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 29 June 2020‎ (UTC)

Should this be added or not

Hi all I got a note on my talk page from TheRealGutripper. He has been adding a Most points in a single season table to the Premier League records and statistics page. And PeeJay2K3 has been removing them saying that it is not needed. I would like to know what others would think about adding this table to the page. Refs can be found for it if nessercery. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If we have records for goals, assists, and attendances, I don't see why we shouldn't also have records for points. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's very crufty, so nowhere else, but that is probably ok in that list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that section, although "Most points in a season by a team promoted in the previous season" is unnecessary IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same as Nehme1499. There are plenty of refs, I thought using the Premier League tables page was the most appropriate, but plenty of articles around as well maybe this one is better ? ( https://www.squawka.com/en/premier-league-champions-most-points-title-winners-sides-ranked/). TheRealGutripper (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the same ref that I was going to mention. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good ref to use though, since last season Liverpool didn't win the title and still finished with the third-highest points total of all time; although that stat is mentioned in the ref you've provided, what about the other non-champions who would appear in a list of the highest points totals? How do we source those? It's just not a good stat to do a top 10 table for. – PeeJay 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right regarding the Squawka reference, it refers to only champions. There are many other articles regarding the subject - perhaps this one is better? (https://thefootballfaithful.com/highest-points-totals-premier-league-history/)? It's can also easily be sourced and checked using the Premier League website's tables, the data there is easy to access. TheRealGutripper (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, as I said, I don't think it's good to do a top 10 list for this stat. The only thing that matters, IMO, is the team that currently holds the record. Unlike top scorer tables, where the players below could potentially catch the one at the top, the teams below in the list of most points in a season can never improve on the record they set. Every season is a new entry in the record. Same goes for the most goals by a player in a single season - the only thing that matters is the player at number 1, the current record holder. So honestly, the Squawka reference is fine for the purpose I suggest; the one you just linked is better for your purposes, but it still doesn't cover the entire top 10. – PeeJay 09:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, if User:TheRealGutripper has issues with changes I make, they should come to me directly or post here themselves. Also, just for clarity, you make it sound like I've been doing this on a regular basis, when in fact TheRealGutripper added that table and I removed it; there was one addition and one removal. Furthermore, I didn't just say the table wasn't needed. My actual comment in my edit summary was "most points in a season is rarely discussed in the same way as most goals scored by individuals, as evidenced by the fact that you haven't provided a source that specifically talks about points records, just an archive of PL tables". You can't equate a list of the 10 best points totals with a list of the 10 highest goalscorers since they're totally different stats. Having a top 10 for one stat doesn't mean we have to have them for all of them, and removing it for one doesn't mean we have to remove it for all of them. I agree with User:Nehme1499 that the overall points record should be listed, but a top 10 table isn't required for the reason I gave in my edit summary. – PeeJay 20:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, PeeJay. I just wanted to have more of a discussion and views from others in the community regarding the topics of some of the page improvements I had been making, which I hope you can understand. As there's now been 7 recent changes to the page where my edits were reverted by you, we obviously have diverging views on what makes the page better or worse. It just seems healthy to have a discussion with others regarding the topics at that point, with all due respect. :) TheRealGutripper (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Woman's football season pages.

Since when are we doing woman's football season pages for clubs? I've just come across;

• 2020–21 Chelsea F.C. Women season
• 2019–20 Chelsea F.C. Women season
• 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. Women season
• 2017 Chelsea L.F.C. season

Govvy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We recognise the FA WSL as fully pro from 2018 onwards, so there's no valid reason not to have articles from that point on per WP:NSEASONS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes we have WP:NSEASONS, but that can't supersede WP:GNG and each article fails that at the moment, dominated by Chelsea website only citations does not pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Most season pages for clubs seem to be dominated by the club's website. Probably the easiest source which has the information. So anyways, go ahead and improve it Govvy :) --SuperJew (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as an example for my point have a look at 2019–20_Chelsea_F.C._season#References - 74 references: 1 is just a note, 55 from the club's website, 12 from other clubs' websites, 2 from the league's website, 1 from the confederation's website, 1 from CAS, and 2 outside references (ESPN and BBC) (the last 4 are all due to the transclusion of the league table and not of the page itself). --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Going a few seasons back, the pattern is pretty much the same, even including in 2017–18 Chelsea F.C. season references to a fan-created wiki. Bottom line, these pages you mentioned require improvement, not deleting (as you seem to be implying). --SuperJew (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean most clubs are dominated by their own website on season pages? Are people that bad, GNG clearly asks for secondary sources, not primary. I have no interest in improving those pages, and from what Chris said, that 2017 page fails NSEASONS since it's creation! :/ As for the Chelsea's mens team I've asked Ledinhvuchelsea ages ago to not use primary sources so much but he hasn't really listen to that. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there are few/no secondary sources in an article at the moment is not grounds for deletion. If they don't exist at all then fair enough, but you can't say that a subject fails GNG simply because there's no secondary sources in the article currently...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As ChrisTheDude wrote. I would assume Govvy you wouldn't suggest to delete the mens' team pages due to few/no secondary sources at the moment --SuperJew (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

More examples: 2019–20 FC Barcelona season dominated mostly by Barcelona sources, 2019–20 Real Madrid CF season dominated mostly by Real Madrid sources, 2019–20 Juventus F.C. season dominated mostly by Juventus sources, 2019–20 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season dominated mostly by PSG sources. I believe the season articles with few primary sources and mostly secondary sources are the exception, not the general done thing. --SuperJew (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE says that you need to check that no RS exist before nominating for deletion, not just that the article has no RS. Spike 'em (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more sources than 2019–20 Crawley Town F.C. season, which is acceptable as it's a season of a fully-professional league. Just seems like people tend to favour primary sources in season articles for some reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest deleting anything other than the 2017 Woman's chelsea season article. I wanted to confirm if we are doing woman's season pages now. I am starting to think NSeasons has some weakness. But I picked Chelsea articles as an example. I really feel that editors need to avoid over-using primary sourced citations as that's not grounds for identifying GNG, and make sure we are generating the right kind of sources for these articles. But there a questionable approach to down we are using citations. It's lazy editing and other editors need to make source to find those secondary sources. Govvy (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Joining this page

How do you join WikiProject Football? AngusMacintosh (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just edit football-related articles, and chip in to discussions here if you feel like it. There's nothing more to it than that really :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks AngusMacintosh (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@AngusMacintosh: Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members and add your name to the list. Eagleash (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eagleash, I had forgotten about that page. To be fair, it doesn't seem to be very up to date, as there are "members" listed who haven't edited for many years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, I see you've already done that. Eagleash (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The page kind of implies that editors who have not edited footy project pages for a year become 'former members'... however, it does say as of 2018... Eagleash (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Petre Purima

On this new article in the info box there is Romania Olympic, is that right? Or should it be written a different way? Govvy (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well the Olympic football team is an under 23 team, and I notice the line above, it has Romania U23, but also linked to Romania Olympic football team. And considering there wasn't an Olympics in 1978-79, and Romania didn't qualify for the Olympics between 1964 and 2020, not sure how they can be classed as playing for the Romanian Olympic team. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the source in question [9], I'm guessing the competition OT means other, rather than Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's a little confusing, I also thought it odd there was this page Romania Olympic football team with very little on it. Govvy (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that's where Romania national under-23 football team was directing too Romania Olympic football team, when I thought it should of been the other way around. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Olympics hasn't always been an under-23 competition, hence the need for separate articles for the Olympic team and the under-23 team. Which one did this person play for? – PeeJay 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, until the 1988 edition senior teams participated in the Olympics. From 1992 onwards the Olympics became an under-23 competition. The "olympic team" is either the senior team until 1988, or the under-23 team from 1992. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mauro Núñez Bastos

I came across Mauro Núñez Bastos going through the project's list of unreferenced BLPs and was wondering if anyone could provide any insight as to how he might pass WP:NFOOTY. Hack (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ATK Mohun Bagan

Hi, currently we have an AfD in progress regarding the "merger" of two teams in India, ATK and Mohun Bagan. This AfD has been around since 17 June 2020 but has slowed down in discussion a lot recently. I just wanted to bring it up so to encourage more participation on a topic that has not reached a resolution yet.

Here is some sourced context for those interested: Prior to 2020, India had two top tier football leagues, the Indian Super League and the I-League. ATK plays in the Indian Super League and Mohun Bagan play in the I-League. However, on 16 January 2020 it was announced that RPSG Group, the owners of ATK, would purchase an 80% stake in Mohun Bagan Football Club, with "Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Private Limited" owning the remaining 20%. The only information we were given at the time were that the clubs would "merge", include the brand names of ATK and Mohun Bagan, and also play in the Indian Super League for 2020–21. We did not receive confirmation though on the official name of the club, any branding whatsoever, how the two squads would be merged, and whether the history of ATK and/or Mohun Bagan will be incorporated into this "new" club. It was reported that the "merged club" would come into being on 1 June 2020. Obviously, that didn't happen due to the current Covid-19 pandemic. On 8 June 2020, it was reported by Goal.com that the name ATK Mohun Bagan was registered with the Government of India’s Ministry of Corporate Affairs. However, to me at least, that is clickbait since the article doesn't actually discuss the team name but rather the new name of the corporation that will own the club "ATK Mohun Bagan Private Limited". As of today, both the Indian Super League and I-League social media accounts and official pages refer to the clubs as separate entities. Both ATK and Mohun Bagan still run their own social media channels and pages too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS GiantSnowman 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't see how this is canvassing. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Loan contract expired, but transfer window still closed?

Take Robin Olsen as an example. His loan contract from Roma to Cagliari has expired (he won't complete the season). However, the Italian transfer window doesn't open until 1 September. Therefore, his transfer back to Roma can't be fully registered until then. So, since he currently can't play for either clubs, should the article say that "he plays for Cagliari on loan from Roma" or that "he plays for Roma"? // Mattias321 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Plays for Roma. Let's not over-complicate this. GiantSnowman 16:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

External links

Hi, in this article an editor removed some external links with WP:ELNO item #1 as reason: "'the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article'. A heap of near-identical links to databases is no good".

Is it consensus now that we should remove these links? I wonder because good articles like Thierry Henry, Bert Trautmann, Lionel Messi, Thomas Müller etc. contain such links. --Jaellee (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said after you re-added the links in violation of BRD, having a heap of near-identical external links to databases at the foot of an article violates ELNO. They should be used in-line rather than as an external link. GiantSnowman 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Further - say a player has played in England, France, Germany, and Spain. Just off the top of my head there are at least 11 websites that all are stats databases (Soccerway, Soccerbase, Premier League, L'Equipe, Ligue 1, Eurosport, Weltfussball, Fussballdatenbank, DFB, BDFutbol, LaPreferente) - are you going to include them all? Of course not. GiantSnowman 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not need links to every database but I think that some of these links in the external links sections are helpful for the reader. You removed them all and left the reader without easy access to any of the databases. --Jaellee (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that external links for certain players is necessary. The vast majority of footballers don't have either prose noting their appearances and goals season by season, or a career statistics table. If one wanted to check the player's stats season by season, external links are the only viable option. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

External link(s) to athlete stats too detailed to include in an article are explicitly permitted/encouraged at WP:ELYES #3, so there's certainly no problem in principle with linking to databases. There's no point linking to several identical ones, but if they're not near-identical, then I think they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this article, kicker is used as an inline source so it's not actually needed as an ext link, although it'd help if the article made it clearer where the infobox stats come from; Soccerway has similar, albeit less comprehensive, content, and is in English, so more accessible for the reader; and the DfB profile is different because it covers his youth international career, which the others don't. Incidentally, the Hannover 96 infobox stats are out of date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

An easy fix is to change the external links section to a general reference section. Hack (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2. Kante4 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If the DFB link is used to verify the youth international career, it should be in-line, not an EL. GiantSnowman 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having Soccerbase, Soccerway and the like as an external link section if they are already cited as references for stats tables.--EchetusXe 12:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, that's my whole point! GiantSnowman 14:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement!--EchetusXe 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, only one of the the external links in question was already used inline in the article, the two others weren't. So the two others shouldn't have been deleted without using them as inline references first as I understand this agreement. --Jaellee (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A second link should have been used in-line, and now is. The third source can (and should) also be used in-line for the career stats table. GiantSnowman 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that in general it's particularly sensible either to stack additional databases as external links whether they add something extra or not, or to shoehorn them into the article as references when an existing ref would do the job. In this case, the DFB one was correctly moved into the body because without it (or some alternative) the youth stats were unsourced. But if another database added something useful that the existing references didn't, there's no good reason I can think of for forcing it into the article as a reference just to avoid it appearing as an external link. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Roberto Firmino

Can somebody please tidy up the WP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH violations of @Barton Dave: at Roberto Firmino? I'm about to reach 3RR - he has broken it. I am also about to explode with frustration. GiantSnowman 21:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic F.C.

Sadly, Wigan Athletic F.C. has gone into administration. There is bound to be high traffic on this article and Wigan related articles, extra eyes are appreciated. JMHamo (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The first of many.--EchetusXe 12:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll lend and eye (two if I can spare them). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Is English transfer window open?

I've got Danel Sinani on my watchlist, and he has now been listed as a Norwich player. Whilst he was intended to sign on 1 July, I thought the transfer window wasn't open until after this season ends? So he'd still be a Dudelange player. Or am I wrong about that? FYI can't find any sources newer than April about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Clubs can receive players previously signed, but they won't be eligible to play any of the remaining games this season. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MLS Is Back Tournament and Infobox

Just curious before the MLS is Back Tournament starts, how we will deal with appearances in this in the Infobox and Career Statistics tables. Essentially this is a "World Cup format style tournament with a group stage and knockout rounds" However, group stage matches will count towards the overall league table, while knockout rounds will not. So I assume that we will include the group stage matches in the Infobox, but not the knockout round matches. For the stats table, I guess we could do the same and throw the Knockout round matches in a "Cup" or "Other" column. However, I wanted to see if there was a consensus already established and get other perspectives before it starts rather than to rely on my own assumptions. I didn't see any mention of this in the talk page, so don't know if there is already an idea in place, since this is a very unconventional event. I can't recall any other hybrid league/cup tournaments RedPatchBoys (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoys: I agree, the group stage is essentially the same as the regular season, with the added effect of determining the teams for the knockout stage. So only statistics from the group matches belong in the infobox, knockout matches should be tallied in the "other" column with a note (e.g. "Appearance(s) in MLS is Back Tournament knockout stage"). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review Draft:ZhFC Dnepr Mogilev

This is a draft about a Belarusian women's soccer/football team that I put a lot of time into and is in the women's top division but does not have an article yet. 2601:643:8101:64E1:C5A6:3BBC:2358:658B (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that a bit more text (and sources) is needed. Keep in mind that the sources don't all necessarily have to be in English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 Burnley F.C. season and 2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

I've just noticed that these pages has been created. Although they are likely to be in next season's Premier League, their current total of 45 points is too small for mathematical safety. Just one more win will do for them but these pages may have been created relatively too early. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was contemplating moving the Spurs one into draft space. Govvy (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If you think that’s a bit too soon, check out 2020–21 West Ham United F.C. season. Wouldn’t want to bet on a league that’ll be played in.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well the clubs clearly will have a 2020-21 season, so the articles are valid, they probably just editing to not state unequivocally that they will play in the PL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And in the case of the Burnley article, that season won't start on 1 July 2020 as there are still scheduled matches to be played here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

These season pages often log the transfers and results from a season. As numerous transfers have been announced already (i.e. Chelsea signing Hakim Ziyech and Timo Werner), as well as players being released, I think it's entirely reasonable for the pages to stay up. Having looked at the pages for Burnley, Tottenham and West Ham, there is no schedule for games on any of these pages anyway. They will be added once fixtures are announced. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Premier League and Championship club article seasons 2019–20

Usually seasons end on 30 June this year. But this one won't for these clubs in the divisions for reasons we already know. I've been going around a few random club season articles, all says "The season covers the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 July 2020.". That would be factually incorrect due to scheduled matches in July. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well League Two is finished now. But yeah, League One play-off teams, and and all Premier League and Championship clubs definitely need changing.--EchetusXe 12:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with editing the 2019-20 pages, as their seasons will end later in 2020. However, I think the seasons for 2020-21 should stay as "1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021" because of the transfer market opening on 1 July 2020. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Release list

I was just curious, are we going to put the 1 July released players in this extended season or the next season pages? Govvy (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I always put end-of-contract releases in "this" season. They're released when their contracts expire at the end of "this" season, and take no part in the next. Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes me too. Though the Coventry guy that updates most of the club season articles puts them in the following season.--EchetusXe 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think following season makes more sense - they affect the next season much more than current season. Someone reading about the 2019-20 season wants to know what the changes to the squad are since the previous season. --SuperJew (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure consensus has been developed here before. I might even have raised it myself with respect to what "the Coventry guy" was doing. Gricehead (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always found it strange that these are put in the following season too. The players have a contract until the end of the season and then have no relationship with the club in the next. Spike 'em (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I always let them stay on both articles at first. Don't want to get into an edit war with Coventry guy. And yeah on the off chance that someone wants to know what's new about the current season then it might be useful for them. But once the new season has got going then I remove them, because they shouldn't be there. EchetusXe 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's better to have them in the following season, since their release indicates a change from the previous season's squad. Having their releases listed in the previous season makes no sense to me since they were released after all the matches were played (well, not in the case of this season, but you know what I mean), so the first season their releases have any meaning towards is the next one. – PeeJay 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems we are following the old rules, which seems to be different per person here! But I've followed the same process as PeeJay, Govvy (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Shock horror - why not include in both? GiantSnowman 11:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Because we try to avoid unnecessary repetition of information? --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always seen them in the 'next season' pages, as the season pages are often defined as covering the period "from 1 July 20xx to 30 June 20xx", thus the players released on 1 July should be included on this page, and not the previous season. Also, as mentioned above, this is more likely to affect the 'next' season, as most players released will find new clubs during this season, and this information can be added via efns, as seen here. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Petros

Has this guy actually played for Iran? I can't seem to be able to verify the sources or find anything. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, does WP:NFOOTY apply to futsal players? He seems to have only played football for a lower-tier Iranian team (not fully-pro), while the rest of his career is playing futsal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think he played futsal for Iran, and that isn't covered by WP:FOOTY, which refers to FIFA Tier 1 International Match and WP:FPL- both of which only apply to association football. And doesn't look like they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, I was just going through the new page feed when I found the article. I've watched some Futsal on Eurosports before, but other than that, it's hard to verify a player like this. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

It seems like Comparisons between the North American Soccer League and Major League Soccer was created recently. What are the opinions of editors here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Also someone might want to have a talk with BornonJune8 as they seem to be creating a lot of these kind of pages, and are continuing to despite the fact that most of them have been AFD'ed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not needed. REDMAN 2019 - could be worth reporting the editor to ANI and seeking a topic ban if they continue to create non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It could be worthwhile, such as Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars or Comparison of U.S. state governments. But that football article is strange, why does it consist of tables?--EchetusXe 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems a strange article to me, and that's not friendly to mobile view, bad use of tables and feels full of WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MLS: Teams or franchises?

There's an ongoing edit war at FC Cincinnati changing the hatnote from "This article is about the Major League Soccer franchise. For the United Soccer League franchise, see FC Cincinnati (2016–18)." to "This article is about the Major League Soccer team. For the United Soccer League team, see FC Cincinnati (2016–18)." @Walter Görlitz: has reverted it a several times. The IP editor has a point that there's an inconsistency, but there was also an argument a couple years back regarding the distinction between MLS franchises and normal soccer clubs - a team doesn't actually get "promoted" to MLS, a new franchise is created and the branding is transferred. I personally think "franchise" is a better distinction in the hatnotes for clubs like Portland, Orlando, Cincinnati, but I wanted to bring it here for a discussion considering the ongoing edit war. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First, thanks for starting the discussion.

Second, the anon was changing description template, not a hatnote.

Third, the anon makes a valid point. The other MLS franchise articles that had a description that called them clubs. Some did not yet have a description.

In short, it would make sense to have all of the article use the same term. I'm in favour of calling them all franchises. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In conventional English, they are teams. While technically franchises or whatnot, the general public would call them a "team", the general reliable sources use "team" in reports, and the label "franchise" itself is controversial due to the implication. The most neutral term to use would be "team". SounderBruce 04:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SounderBruce. Yes, MLS teams are formally "franchises", but Juventus is formally a società per azioni, Santos is formally a non-profit member's club, Arsenal is formally just the footballing subsidiary of Arsenal Holdings… It's neither practical nor useful to the readers to refer to teams by their administrative status rather than just "team" except when talking specifically about ownership and/or franchising arrangements. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they are clubs not teams. Teams would be different for the senior squad, U21, women's etc. However, it's certainly better to call them a team than a franchise, which is a term for commercial arms, ownership etc which is rarely what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I second Lee Vilenski’s comment.

Franchise/club = entity that includes the ownership, players, coaches, corporate staff, and in the case of some clubs, socios

Team = the most public-facing division of a franchise/club that’s limited to the playing and coaching staff

Plus, many continental European clubs have teams for football, basketball, volleyball etc within a single club. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think team would be the best choice here. While franchise is appropriate in terms of the actual organization, team is more specific to the specific group of player i.e. the first team. I think it would be inappropriate to call teams from the US/Canada "clubs", however, unless there is demonstrated evidence that they operate as a club rather than a franchise. Jay eyem (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 'club' or 'team' rather than 'franchise'. GiantSnowman 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential COI

Hi all, just to make you aware of a potential WP:COI with @A player of Burnley Football club:, who claims to be a Burnley F.C. player. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I like how the user's user page says "I have kept myself anonymous to avoid publicity." and yet they chose the user name "A player of Burnley Football club" rather than take the more obvious (to me at least) route of picking something which would give no indication of their alleged job at all. I am highly sceptical that the user is genuinely a Burnley player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Same feelings. Crowsus (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How many Burnley footballers would call the Premier League EPL? And how many would like the Indian Super League? Seems suspicious. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I highly doubt they're actually a Burnley player but rather an over excited fan/troll. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep an eye on him. (Assuming it's a he). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have dropped the user a note saying that if they are genuinely a Burnley player they should not edit related article per WP:COI and if they are not then they should seriously consider changing user name per WP:MISLEADNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User's userpage now states "Sometimes people get deceived by my IP address. They ask that why my IP address has location of India. This is due to conflicting networks." - hmmmmm....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole userpage is amazing ahahahaha. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

They also seem to be wanting anonymity but also tell people where they were born, which is helpful in working out who they are (assuming they're genuine). All in all, very confusing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's official: Ashley Barnes is a Wikipedian (who edits using an Indian IP in broken English). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we ask him to sort out the Austrian flag fiasco once and for all? Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So much for me trying to stop OUTing attempts on his page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, even if joking, WP:OUTING still applies. GiantSnowman 15:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This user page is currently suspicious as to who I think that could possibly be.

The text shows that he is a certain number of years younger than this player and the first section claims "I have so far managed to score a few goals for my team".

By using this player's date of birth with reliable sources confirming it, I have narrowed it down to five possible players who were all born in the same year. Then by using one of the opening sentences, I have narrowed it down to three players as two of them (both born in June of that year) have scored just once. The user also said he is a fan of Burnley (might be his home club?). If that's the case, there's only one possible person who that could be.

See if other users can investigate like User:Daemonickangaroo2018 who has undid a few of the user's contributions and User:Joseph2302 who has advised the user to remove the career section. User:ChrisTheDude may also assist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on all the information available at one point on there, there is only one player that it can be. Not sure we should actually be trying to guess/tell everyone who though, per WP:OUTING. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

He has already been (not really) outed in the COI section above. Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine the player in question would know that this statement, which previously appeared on the userpage, makes no sense geographically: "I was brought up in Somerset. [....] When we shifted to Lancashire,I signed for Paulton Rovers" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is highly unlikely that this user has any connection with Burnley FC, but is more likely a glory hunter from India, judging by the style of English that he uses. A quick look at his edit history shows that many of his edits are done early in the morning UK time. How many Premier League footballers are up and editing Wikipedia at that time? Also is it just a coincidence that the actor with the “funny name” that he met in a restaurant has the same initials as the Burnley player allegedly “outed” above. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked now. JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers all, I was wondering where my new section went to when visiting this page again.

I'd just looked at the edit preceding the current version where it shows the club career, looks like what User:Nehme1499 says could be right. The person I thought of has no connection with Paulton Rovers or Somerset but the Daemonic Kangaroos have edited plenty of times on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m at a loss to understand the reference to myself in the last comment. Rest assured, I am neither Jay Rodriguez nor any other footballer but a retired bean counter. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit history of the page shows lots of edits made by the person in the past to "clean up vandalism" in many cases. No COI's are involved on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This must be one of the most bizarre discussions I’ve seen on WP. Perhaps I should change my username to User:Not Jay Rodriguez. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What I thought the blocked user was him but Nehme1499 says it is Ashley Barnes from Somerset. I wouldn't have said anything about Rodriguez if I'd noticed that section before starting a separate one which was then merged. Also I failed to notice what the user has posted on Mattythewhite's talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Johnson (footballer) and Bristol City F.C.

These articles are subject to being edited with unsourced content relating to the manager. It relates to the possibility that he is no longer the manager of Bristol City but I should think he is until sources are added. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Has just been announced by the BBC Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Struway2 has just put the ref on the former article. The source on Bristol City is different but relates to the same news. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Comparisons between Major League Lacrosse and the Premier Lacrosse League

I am confused, but is not a breach of WP:COPYVIO?? Govvy (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this feels like the worse case of WP:OR, this comparison article? Surely this can't be suitable for wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Whats it got to do with football?--EchetusXe 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely WP:SYNTH, and appears to be self referential. So circular in logic. The main sport noticeboard is probably best place for this. Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why has this been raised with the football project.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: might I suggest that you raise that question at WP:LACROSSE? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

dam, I was thinking football too much maybe, and that Lacrosse project is kinda dead. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between the Women's United Soccer Association, Women's Professional Soccer, and National Women's Soccer League

I didn't feel this article is right for wikipedia and I put it forward for AfD to test the waters and see what others think. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:CANVASS; listing it on the main discussion table is sufficient. GiantSnowman 12:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Indian Super League

I've just come across this article at WP:RFPP and there seems to be an ongoing edit war surrounding whether Indian Super League is the top-tier of Indian football. I would appreciate some extra eyes on it if anyone has some insight. Woody (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

While no expert on Indian Football, having taken a quick look at the Indian football league structure it appears the Indian Super League (ISL) and I-League (IL) are both level 1 of the pyramid. The IL is recognised as the top tier league with promotion and relegation to the lower tiers. The ISL is defacto a top tier league but has no promotion and relegation to the rest of the Indian football league structure and is a franchise league similar to the MLS is the United States. The only time teams for either of these leagues can face one another in a competitive match is in the Indian Super Cup. 2018 final had Bengaluru (ISL) against East Bengal (IL) but the 2019 final had two teams from the ISL face each other. Also all of the recent call ups to the Indian national football team all play for ISL clubs.

Finally this link -https://www.the-afc.com/media/india-clubs-agree-to-work-together-on-league-roadmap to me makes it look like the league is being restructured and eventually the ISL will have relegation to the I-league, with this league and all subsequent leagues dropping down a level in the football pyramid. Two points of note from this link:

• In season 2019-20, the ISL will attain the status of premiere league competition in Indian football.
• In its recommendation for 2024-25, it is agreed to fully implement promotion and relegation into the top league, and abolition of two parallel leagues.

In my opinion I would say the leagues are on the same level for now but with talk of proposed restructuring of the league system in the future. Wna247 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, both are top division leagues, with clubs from both qualifying for continental football the following season. Number 57 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, both the Indian Super League and the I-League are the dual top tier leagues. According to most articles, For the next three seasons, the existing arrangement of two parallel leagues will continue as previously suggested by Patel in July.. The confusion comes from a few things: a) Indian news articles are freaking dumb sometimes and misreport things, especially for football, a lot. b) The Indian Super League press release stated that they were now the premier football league but that is not an independent source and c) the ISL now has the AFC Champions League spot so some people like to put two and two together and well, yeah. I hope I was able to clear things up a little. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the insight, it's a bit clearer now. I think the crux of the disruption on the page is that editors are seeing the AFC Champions League spot as denoting it being the top tier, rather than one of two in parallel. I'll think about how to make that clearer in the article. Cheers, Woody (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think the only thing we need to do is just state that it is the dual top tier league and then in the history section just state what the current update is. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, re-opening, I am wondering if my interpretation is now wrong. Looking back at official sources like from the AFC, they do say that "with the ISL being recognised as the top league in India starting from this 2019-2020 season." but then has things such as the I-League winner getting an AFC Cup spot and this: "In its recommendation for 2024-25, it is agreed to fully implement promotion and relegation into the top league, and abolition of two parallel leagues." So now I open it to you guys what the interpretation is here. We have two leagues, the Indian Super League and the I-League. Entering the 2019–20 season, they were dual leagues... now, I am not sure. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Following up here for anyone who wants to comment. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it really two top tier leagues just because I-League has an AFC spot? Like ArsenalFan700 said, AFC has deemed ISL as the top league and just for the transition, I-League is given AFC spot, that's my interpretation. Coderzombie (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Any more inputs? The consensus really seems undecided right now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, this article from the AFC pretty much hints that the ISL and I-League are still viewed at the same level, at least for now. They have yet to actually differentiate between the two leagues and what is tier 1 and tier 2. But then again, this article is pretty straight forward in calling the ISL tier 1. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Starting position in table different than 1

Is it possible to "shift" the starting position in a league table to something other than 1? For example, in the 2020–21 Lebanese Premier League there will be Top 6 and Bottom 6 competitions. It would be ideal for the Bottom 6 rankings to start from 7, rather than from 1. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You could use a wikitable instead of a template, that would do the trick. – PeeJay 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would still need to invoke the table in 2020–21 in Lebanese football, which I think wouldn't work with a normal table. Is there no other competition in the world with a similar format? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I know they do something similar in the Czech First League, and this article uses the 'highest_pos' parameter for the bottom half. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, just what I needed! Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Morning all. I saw that Transfermarkt is considered unreliable on english wiki and wondered why. Looked for some old chat (2012) and read that the only reason why is that the site is users-made, reason that is false. Wikipedia and, for instance, Discogs for music are users-made because everyone could modify data and only after there is a verification. Transfermarkt, on the contrary, has his verification by the internal team before the data are modified: this is called "four eyes control", nothing can be published without a verification. It is a German site, much organised. I know that for some countries, data are exact but poor (Brazil, Argentina and even UK), but I know for sure that concerning Italia and Deutschland the data are perfect and complete, even for youth tournements. The same for national teams competitions. Hence, could the community consider, after eight years, to admit this site among the reliable ones? Thanks.--Tre di tre (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can find the same information in another source, it's best to use that, I've seen before and for some reason a fake name being transferred to Tottenham when that never happened! :/ Govvy (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tre di tre: I don't know about Discogs, but Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference to quote per Wikipedia standards, exactly for the reasons you said - that it is user-made. See WP:CITEWIKI. --SuperJew (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I think that what he’s trying to say is that Wikipedia (and Discogs) aren’t reliable, as content is user-generated and there is no external control. Transfermarkt, on the other hand, doesn’t automatically publish content written by users, but needs admins to manually approve them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is some editorial oversight I think it's something that should be reviewed, it just depends how rigorous that checking is, after all there is a lot of data to be checked, if the admins don't have time/unwilling to check it all, some rogue stuff could easily slip by. Crowsus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The content of Transfermarkt is user-generated, even if there is a basic vetting process, and it is not considered reliable. GiantSnowman 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I'm sorry, you can't find all the data, for instance, on Soccerway, that is considered reliable. Could you please tell me the name of that fake player, please? @SuperJew: see Nehme1499 answer: Transfermarkt has user proposals and every proposal is supervised. No modification is automatically approved after source verification. Then, is more reliable than others. I repeat, in my direct experience, italian and german data are reliable even for amateur football. Know less about the rest, but the mechanism is the same: what is there, is verified.--Tre di tre (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking me. And it was a good while ago and I can't remember the names I saw, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source from my experience. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy:I simply ask for the bugs you found. Anyway, you said "it was a good while ago": things change. If you don't believe me, try to vandalise something and you will find you can't. Regards--Tre di tre (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Transfermarkt has been cited by the BBC as a source. 1, 2, 3. I am a fan of Soccerway, and I have found it to be a generally reliable source of information, but it is not 100% accurate. I'd like to see both approved for use as sources on Wiki, with an understanding that these sites cannot be absolutely accurate all of the time, but that's just me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder. If I'm not wrong, it seems the majority of who wrote here has nothing against Transfermarkt and who is against his reliability has very old information. Would the community consider to give green light to it or else? Thanks--Tre di tre (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm neither pro or against Transfermarkt. For now, I refrain from using it as it's deemed unreliable by WP:FOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: "it's deemed unreliable" ok, but, why? For me, there's no reason why. Is this the point. See above.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Timo Werner

Hi, could someone help at Timo Werner, where first-team appearances and goals are constantly being from the infobox and career stats table? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and protected. GiantSnowman 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it me or does that info box image look airbrushed? Govvy (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I've slightly changed the colour balance in the cropped-out version, but I don't think it affected the picture in terms of it looking any more "airbrushed" than the original version. Unfortunately, a lot of football photographers have this tendency to add weird effects to their pictures (see Hilal El-Helwe or Joan Oumari). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Andy Lonergan

I see that Dimspace just added the Premier League title back to Andy Lonergan's honours, when @ChrisTheDude: removed it as Lonergan did not make a single appearance for Liverpool. Can this be reviewed? JMHamo (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Lonergan has received/will receive a PL medal (he is not eligible under the usual rules, having played 0 games, so the only way he would get one is if LFC chose to award him one under some sort of special circumstances). Dimspace claimed in his edit summary that the medal win was "sourced", but the source provided does not in any way support the claim..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I read a paper article the other day that said Klopp will make sure squad members like Lonergan get a medal. But until that is confirmed... GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When i said sourced i meant source of liverpool winning the league. i looked down the edit notes and saw that the honour was removed for lack of sourcing. So I grabbed league sources (replicate from Roberto Firminho article) and brought the sources over. My understanding is that the 5 games rule does not apply to goalkeepers but nobody seems to know where that is stated if indeed its true. He was on the bench for a considerable part of the start of the season when Allison was out injured so its clear he has been part of the squad, and his contract was renewed last month to take him through to the end of the season. Do players qualify as winners only upon receipt of a medal? or if they have been part of the league squad?

(I didnt realise it had been removed over the question of eligibility, i just saw the most recent rollback said lack of sources, user Mattythewhite just stated "unsourced" as his reason for rollback, perhaps he should have been clearer in his edit notes, my mistake, but it was a good faith edit based on his summary). This would explain why the same user is all over my talk page accusing me of being disruptive and threatening me with edit bans.. Dimspace (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Article List_of_Premier_League_winning_players states "At the discretion of the Premier League board, additional medals can be awarded to players who played less than five matches. This special dispensation is usually reserved for back-up goalkeepers and players who did not make the minimum number of appearances through injury" but that appears to be unsourced itself because it doesnt actually say that in the page of the rulebook they ref.. :') Dimspace (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence is cited sources that aren't the rulebook. Did you even bother to check them? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I bother to check? No, I just stated that the clause isn't in the rulebook without actually reading it or checking, what do you think? Dude I am not 12 years old. Yes, I explicitly checked page 208 which was the cited page and it did not say anything about dispensation for reserve goalkeepers.

The independant article does "Begovic will as the Premier League makes special dispensation for reserve goalkeepers to recognise the vital role they play during a season, despite the lack of appearances that usually come with the territory." but I dont think a single article is on itself definite evidence. **However, if it is, then you warning me gets even worse because then we have precedent that in fact per the independent article Lonergan WILL receive a medal so it raises the question even more why you are threatening editing bans lol..** THe second source link is from 2013 and is not valid anyway.

That aside, I made a good faith edit based on the edit summary preceding my edit which simply said the reference was removed for not being sourced. Having read the talk page I can see that it seems to be wiki policy to not credit a player with the honour unless they received a physical medal. I know for next time. That is of course something Mattythewhite could have told me politely instead of accusing me of making disruptive edits and threatening me with editing bans. This is the second time now from this user threatening bans on people who are just trying to help. One more instance and I will be escalating the user for investigation for being an arrogant ***. Have a nice day Dimspace (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What I have been politely trying to tell you is that content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by citing sources. If you feel I have acted inappropriately or have misused my admin privileges, WP:AN would be the best place to make a report. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So if indeed we are accepting the Independant as a source then Lonergan will get a medal. (personally I dont think a single news article is solid evidence) Dimspace (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll see at the end of the season for sure who gets medals. The player profiles on the Premier League official site are the best resource for this. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2011 FIFA Women's World Cup statistics

I was wondering do we really need this split off or not? As 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup seems to contain most of the stats already. Govvy (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Premier League International Cup matches

Since when matches of Premier League International Cup are considered not official? 188.222.245.203 (talk · contribs) is removing them from statistics and the source supporting the information at Bruno Lage.

First, IP made an accusation: falsified and made up statistics for Benfica B.

Then IP wrote: The tournament mentioned in the other statistics for Benfica B are not counted as official matches.; Premier League International Cup doesn't appear on ForaDeJogo's website! Therefore are not counted as official matches played as ForaDeJogo only shows league matches, as does the football database website!; removed unnecessary source material as the other two sources do not show the Premier League International Cup; NOT SHOWN IN OTHER TWO SOURCES! Therefore the sources do not back up the source from Zerozero.

Zerozero says Premier League International Cup matches are official. SLBedit (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And now IP is re-adding flags to managerial statistics infobox. SLBedit (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an official tournament, but for reserve teams. It shouldn't be counted in the infobox or the career statistics table. I suppose it counts as an honour for the winning players, but again only of the same status as reserve or youth tournaments they won. Crowsus (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought. However, the discussion seems to be regarding the Managerial statistics section of Bruno Lage, namely the Benfica B stats. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

188.222.245.203 continues to remove the matches and zerozero source. SLBedit (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be counted in the infobox or the career statistics table. There you go SLBedit (talk) should not be counted in the managerial statistics table! 188.222.245.203 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 5 July 2020‎ (UTC)

That is your opinion. Zerozero counts Premier League International Cup as official matches; therefore, they are included in the statistics. Stop removing them from Bruno Lage and Benfica B articles. SLBedit (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No SLBedit, you stop including them. Benfica B plays league matches in the senior system, so those matches count for stats. PLIC is exclusively for reserves,so those matches do not count. Its simple. What ZeroZero includes does not equate to what Wikipedia includes. By the way, the PLIC matches are also counted on Soccerway, but they don't count any more than the UEFA Youth league, which that website also includes. Of course the competition shouldn't be ignored altogether, but it simply should not count in stats. Crowsus (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put all (official) matches in the "Managerial statistics" section? For example, shouldn't we put the Serie A, Coppa Italia, and Supercoppa Italiana for Maurizio Sarri? Note that I'm not saying anything about the PLIC or Benfica B. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not just league games. SLBedit (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"PLIC is exclusively for reserves" Benfica B is a reserve team. SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

188.222.245.203 (talk · contribs) continues removing the matches before a consensus is reached here. SLBedit (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

188.222.245.203 is now disrupting S.L. Benfica B. SLBedit (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: if Premier League International Cup (according to its article) is not a friendly competition, how can it be considered unofficial? SLBedit (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not unofficial, but it's for reserve teams only so has the same status as, for example, a reserve league in countries such as England. As you probably know, those English reserve teams play in the EFL Trophy with EFL1 / EFL 2 clubs, so matches in that do count for stats tables, but otherwise their matches don't. Benfica B are the same, their league games are in the senior system so do count, but the PLIC doesn't count. Please try to understand that the competitions they play in have different status. I'll have a look at the club article and see what the other disruption you're referring to is... Crowsus (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

...I had a check of SLB B and it's only the manager stats that IP is changing, in line with the rule that PLIC should not be included - obviously you have seen that I agree with that stance, but please do seek further input from others. I agree that if the stats are removed from Lage they should also be removed from 'all other managers' for consistency, but since that only involves Hélder Cristóvão, and TheFinalBall/Playmaker (is that also the same as ZeroZero? It's what was used as a ref in the article anyway) have helpfully included his PLIC total separately, it wouldn't exactly take long to extract from his LigaPro stats in the table. Crowsus (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"TheFinalBall/Playmaker (is that also the same as ZeroZero?" Yes. SLBedit (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"with the rule that PLIC should not be included" Problem is there's no rule about that. "but it's for reserve teams only" Benfica B is a reserve team. Hélder Cristóvão managed 13 games in the PLIC. SLBedit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, Renato Paiva managed 3 matches. SLBedit (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

'Football' or 'soccer' in South Africa?

Hi all. Consensus may have been reached on this before, but should football be referred to as football or soccer in South Africa. The article is called Soccer in South Africa but refers to it pretty much exclusively as 'football' throughout. There is no consistency between articles either, with the following articles all using different names for the sport in their lead sections: Ramahlwe Mphahlele, Bruce Bvuma, Nothando Vilakazi, Kgaogelo Sekgota. Any ideas? Thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

See this RfC from March 2020 - "the consensus is to use "soccer" instead of "football" in articles related to South Africa". GiantSnowman 18:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd use soccer generally, but I still think calling Bafana Bafana and the national women's team "national football team"s is correct based on usage. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

National team year range in infobox

When should be "close" the national year range in the infobox? Only when the player retires, or after a (few) year(s) from his last cap? It would seem strange to me to have, for example, 2015– for a player who has only played one match in 2015. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

For me I would put it after he played his last cap for the national team. HawkAussie (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant for players who haven't formally retired internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think with players who have never officially announced their international retirement there's not much you can do other than use common sense. Someone insisted that Matt Jarvis still have his England dates shown as open-ended eight years after his one and only cap, when he was 32 and playing in League One, on the grounds that he "hadn't retired". That seems a bit nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I am that someone. I followed the rule that if they were still playing and had not announced international retirement then the date was left open however unlikely another appearance was. I accept that for Matt Jarvis this is stretching it. Others in this range are Aaron Lennon, Kieran Gibbs and Theo Walcott. The question is, if they don’t actually announce international retirement then how many years of non-selection are a reasonable amount before we put that end date?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that five years is a reasonable cut-off, which would cover Lennon and Gibbs. I'd struggle to think of a player who was recalled to the national team more than five years after his last cap (now that I have said that, people will probably name loads :-D ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure there was an Egyptian player who had his second cap something like 10 years after his first - but that's the exception that proves the rule. I agree that if there has been no call up or cap for a few years, close it off. GiantSnowman 08:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The question here is if the range is meant to cover the time played or the time he was eligible to play --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No no, my question is just about players who have last played internationally 3, 4, 8 years ago, and have yet to retire. For the range itself (for players who have retired), I believe we should stick to our current method, which is from his debut to his last cap (even if he might have been called up, say, 3 years later). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the years span date of first & last cap, not call-up. GiantSnowman 12:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

99% of players will never formally announce their retirement from NT, they will just quietly not be called up anymore. Therefore it's pointless to rely on this info. Just close the range after one year since last call up. You can always open it again if situation changes. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the 1-year cutoff (it's what I use for Lebanese players), as it's the same timeframe we use for the "recent call-ups" section of the NT pages. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuneaton Borough

This new website has just been created with detailed match and player statistics throughout the entire history of the club. I'm sure some of you will find it useful and let's hope more of these kind of sites pop up!--EchetusXe 14:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Saturday Football International

Is this fake or a real team? Govvy (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if you go to the website given they clearly exist. Whether they meet notability criteria is another matter entirely.--EchetusXe 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be a team that just joined the newly-formed Taiwan Second Division Football League. Apparently Taiwan only had one official league (Taiwan Football Premier League) prior to 2020, with no promotions or relegation. The official Chinese Taipei Football Association lists them as "S.F.I." under the list of eight clubs to join the Second Division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, wasn't sure, cheers for the cleanup. heh, I think I missed the official website when I first looked at that article. Govvy (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Club captaincy

Is it worth it's own article and category?--EchetusXe 14:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say no. At least one such article was deleted in the past (pretty sure it was Liverpool). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

My view would be article isn't, category maybe but probably not. OTBC Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say no to both. Also, it would create a lot of gray areas in the instances of vice-captains (who were maybe the de facto captain a specific season given that the actual captain was injured the whole season). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Grant Hanley has probably only played about half the Norwich matches in last 2 seasons, and Norwich have had at least 3 other temporary captains (Klose, Tettey, Zimmerman, I think maybe Krul as well?) for games. So it's just creating a mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It would also be quite hard to source in most cases - I have the official Gillingham F.C. centenary book (published c.1993) and, although it goes into huge detail on each of the first 100 seasons, it doesn't mention who was captain in any given season, which probably indicates how important it really is(n't) in the grand scheme of things -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Tom Pope was replaced as captain by Leon Legge half way through last season and it wasn't reported anywhere, I just noticed it a while after the change. Bruno Ribeiro appointed four captains at the start of one season and said they would rotate the armband between them. An extreme example but the captaincy can literally change game to game without it being mentioned. EchetusXe 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Reserve teams in the infobox

Joshua Zirkzee

I added an arrow next to Bayern Munich II in the infobox, without adding the text "(on loan)", subsequently shifting Bayern Munich above (see dif). The reasoning is that Zirkzee played for both Bayern and Bayern II during the 2019-20 season. The player didn't move from Bayern to Bayern II on a permanent basis, neither did he sign a new contract. Legally speaking he is just contracted to Bayern who, at their discretion, may decide whether or not to send him to Bayern II (assuming that reserve teams work the way they do in Italy). @Walter Görlitz reverted me twice, stating that the player is "not on the roster" and that "he plays for the second team and has appeared on the first team in trials" (dif 1 and dif 2). Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

He has not been listed on the first team roster so I'm not sure why you think he, and no one else on the second team who has been called up to the first team for a trial, deserves this honour. Your actions constitute WP:OR in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I see you wrote "The player didn't move from Bayern to Bayern II on a permanent basis", but he played the majority of the season for the second team. There is no source to support he is signed to the first team. The club holds his contract and they decide where he plays. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) He's not on the website as being on the first team, but he is signed to Bayern, is playing on their first team, and is listed there on Soccerway. There is no stand-down period for players under 23. I think readers would have a reasonable expectation of finding him there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Any other thoughts? This has larger implications for players who are part of reserve teams. My proposal is to add the arrow next to the reserve team as if he were on loan there (without the text "on loan") if he has also been called up to the first team. It doesn't make sense neither to have him at two teams at once in the infobox (e.g. Bayern and Bayern II both with 2019–) without the arrow, nor to not have Bayern in the infobox if he was called up to the first team squad. We could implement this in the player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Personally I prefer to have the order in which they chronologically debuted for each side. A good example of this is Kwasi Okyere Wriedt, who has played mostly for Bayern Munich's Reserve side, while featuring for the first team on a handful of occasions. What makes this a bit more difficult is that certain players are signed specifically for the second team, i.e. Tobias Schweinsteiger. To me, this sets the second side as it's own separate entity from the first team. Say Mert Yilmaz, who has played in Bayern's second team since 2018, was to make his Bayern debut in the 2020-21 season, would we have to put 2018– Bayern Munich (1) (0) / 2018– → Bayern Munich II (31) (1)? I personally don't like this, as it implies Yilmaz has played in the first team since 2018. I would prefer it to read as 2018– Bayern Munich II (31) (1) / 2020– Bayern Munich (1) (0) Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC) We could say the exact same thing for any loaned-out player. Take Leonardo Spinazzola, who has 2012–2019 Juventus (10) (0), despite having made his debut with Juventus on 12 January 2019 (7 years after he was acquired!). What I'm proposing isn't any more "complicated" than the system we use for loaned-out players. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I strongly dislike the idea of the arrow, makes no sense here. Whenever he made his debut, just add it like normal with the year he debuted. Kante4 (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC) My thought process is to uniform the way we display both reserve players and loaned-out players. We could follow the Italy wiki system, which displays the years based on their spells, and not necessarily when they joined/left the team (see Leonardo Spinazzola on it.wiki, who doesn't have Juventus 2012–2019 Juventus (10) (0) as the first team of the infobox). However, having to go through all players with loan spells and fix them on en.wiki would be a nightmare. Therefore, the only logical solution is to have both loans and reserve teams written in the same way in the infobox. I don't see what differentiates them. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC) But a player for the second team (like Zirkzee or Kwasi Okyere Wriedt before), can play for the first team at any time when injuries, suspensions or just resting their better player happen. An arrow is just wrong and like i said, for me, makes no sense. Some players may stick to the first team... Kante4 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) The arrow is more logical for me since, like a loan player, the player still belongs to the club even if he plays for the reserve team. To list them separately would imply that he played for one rather than the other, whereas the arrow shows it is not necessarily chronological.SFletcher06 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Legally speaking, a player who plays for Bayern II is contracted to Bayern Munich F.C., not to Bayern II. The reserve team can't in and of itself buy or sell players, all transactions go through Bayern. Conventionally speaking yes, the player may have just played for Bayern II and moved to some other team, without even setting foot in Bayern's matchday squad. But picture this: let's say that a player first plays for Bayern II during the 2018–19 season, then plays for Bayern's first team in 2019–20. Having 2018–2019 Bayern Munich II (31) (1) / 2019– Bayern Munich (1) (0) seems to imply that the player was purchased by Bayern from Bayern II, which makes no sense. He was always a Bayern player in 2018, he didn't become one in 2019. Also, what about any normal player who joined a team in 2018–19, and made his debut, say, in February 2019. We display him as having joined the team in 2018, not 2019. Even though he didn't play for his team until 2019, he was always legally a player for them in 2018. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Anyone else? It would be ideal to have this issue buried once and for all. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Actually you've raised some good points, I'm happy to support an arrow in the infobox, but I would understand not having one (and just having the II team) if the player never actually makes an appearance for the first team. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Yes I agree with you on this. I'm happy either way if the player has never appeared in the first team's match sheet. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Also agree with the "where first played" principle. Davies played for the first team first and then was pushed down to the second team. Zirkzee played for the second team first and may work into the first team next season, but not yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Just to be clear, are you supporting the use of the arrow in the infobox? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) There is no need for an arrow, the players can move freely between the first and second teams of the same club, so describing the situation as a "loan" is inaccurate. Especially does not make sense when some players will only play for the second team, while others will work their way up to the first team. For the "current team" in the infobox, the team the player is listed with on the club website can be used (if listed with both teams, then the first team can take priority). S.A. Julio (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with you, it's not a loan. That's why we shouldn't add "(loan)" next to the club in the infobox. I'm only advocating for the arrow in absence of another symbol. Another alternative could be to add the arrow, and the text "(reserve team)" (or something of the sort), or maybe a note next to the club's name. Nehme1499 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC) My view - no arrow, no '(loan)' or similar, and no need for the first team to be listed as '0 (0)' if they never play. GiantSnowman 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I would only list 0 (0) for the first team if the player has been called up to the matchday squad. The same way a 3rd-choice GK would have 0 (0), so should a reserve player who was on the bench in an official competition for the parent club. Nehme1499 (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC) A youth player gets a call up in 2012 due to an injury crisis, spends the rest of his time in the reserves, leaves the club in 2020. Are you going to put '2012-2020' as a senior career? Nonsense. Being in the first-team match day squad is not necessarily indicative of being in the first-team... GiantSnowman 10:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) A 19 y/o 3rd choice GK is part of a team in 2012, doesn't play, and gets sent on endless loans until 2020, when another team permanently buys him. Would you put "2012-2020" for his first club? Nehme1499 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, because that's when his senior career began. In my scenario he never plays for any senior team, as I said... GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Technically speaking, both players are registered in the top division as players. The fact that the team doesn't put them in their "First team" section in their website doesn't mean anything. Both the 19 y/o GK and the reserve player were officially registered in the matchsheet, and could have both featured in a first-team match. How can a player (the reserve player) be part of a matchsheet for a top-division game without being part of the club? Legally speaking, a player doesn't sign a contract with a B team (be it Bayern II, Juventus U23, or Real Madrid Castilla); instead, they sign a contract with the parent team who, at their discretion, may or may not decide to send them to their B team. A player cannot be a B team player without simultaneously being a player for their parent club. It's inherited. For example, a few days ago Marco Olivieri, a Juventus U23 player, made his debut for Juventus in Serie A. Technically speaking, however, nothing differentiates him from, say, Pietro Beruatto, who is also a Juventus U23 player who often features on the Juventus bench. See the Serie A club profile for Juventus: all reserve players are included, regardless of whether they played or not (there are 9 in total). That said, I'm ok in not adding the parent club in the infobox if the player has not ever been called in a matchday for the parent club. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Pardon me sticking my nose in but I think that the page looks fine as it is right now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) We seem to be far from consensus regarding this issue. Obviously I would personally prefer my solution, but I would much prefer consensus to go the other way than for there to not be any consensus at all. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Another opinion, then. On the original question, what REDMAN said. Looks fine as it is right now, except the Bayern II start year should be 2018 because that's when he was first in the team. No arrows: as far as I understand it, he's eligible for either team. Both year ranges open: again, he's eligible for either team. He was a regular in the first-team matchday squad for a couple of months before COVID as well as since, 9 apps, 3 starts makes him a first-team player to all intents and purposes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC) @SportingFlyer, SFletcher06, and Davidlofgren1996: Are you happy in changing your opinion (therefore, to NOT put an arrow) in the name of consensus? This way we can uniform all reserve-team players across, and specify this in the Player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) @Microwave Anarchist (the ping didn't work since you changed your username). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC) There's a huge difference in my mind between playing for a reserve team and playing out on loan. Further muddling the issue is the fact that at least in the US, some players can play for the USL "reserve team" without having a contract for the MLS team (if not all of them?). The problem I see is that this has gotten so muddled I'm not even sure what I've been asked to comment on, as I don't recall ever discussing whether to use an arrow. If arrow = loan versus no arrow = reserve team, the reserve team should not have an arrow when the player is able to move between the two teams freely, which is the case for Zirkzee as he is under 23 years of age. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) If the rest of the community is in agreement, I'm happy to follow consensus. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ok, so I'll take care of the Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23 players, and amend the player MoS. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I second Microwave Anarchist's comment, I'm happy to go with whatever the community decide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: place teams in infobox based on chronological order of debut. No arrows for reserve teams, and the year ranges of the parent and reserve club can overlap. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Luca Clemenza

While fixing the various Juventus U23 players following the discussion above (regarding Joshua Zirkzee), I have encountered a problem. What should we do with Luca Clemenza? Juventus sent him on loan to Ascoli and Padova, before sending him to Juventus U23. After one season, Juventus sent him on loan to Pescara. If I were to simply remove the arrow from Juventus U23, it would seem as if the reserve team sent him on loan to Pescara (which is incorrect). If I were to add Juventus between Juventus U23 and Pescara, it would seem as if Juventus sold him to Juventus U23 (which is also incorrect). THIS is the reason why I started the whole Zirkzee discussion (a lot of Juventus U23 players are like this, since Juve tends to loan a lot of their youth players around). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All Juventus U23 players never been part of the first team. This is why, in Italy, if they reach five caps with first team, they couldn't be part of the second team anymore. Then, is simply to see: As long as they haven't five Serie A caps, they are NOT part of the first team, then, all transferts are to/ from the second team.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Juventus U23 started existing on summer 2018, then, for me, all Juventus players that went on loan "before" his birth must be considered "sold" or, as an alternative, coming from the youth sector, even if they already played pro on loan.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: we keep Juventus as 2017–, and remove the arrow from Juventus U23. Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

He was on loan from Juventus, not Juventus U23. GiantSnowman 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, which is why Juventus U23 has 2019–2020, while Juventus has 2017–. He's at Pescara since 2020, so there is no overlap with Juventus U23. I'm not saying I disagree with putting Juventus U23 below Pescara, just that I'm not sure that not putting the clubs in chronological order is a good idea. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't do it without showing him on loan from Juventus U23, which is factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Then, when he played for Juventus U23 was a transfert? How do you manage it? Quitting that period from chronology?--Tre di tre (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What about Ferdinando Del Sole? Raffaele Alcibiade must be turned into a Juventus player? There's plenty of these players.--Tre di tre (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See above consensus. GiantSnowman 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus above, however, opted for a chronological order. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not in this situation. We do not chronologically order national teams, we should apply that rule in these unique situations as well. GiantSnowman 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, SportingFlyer, Davidlofgren1996, Kante4, Microwave Anarchist, S.A. Julio, REDMAN 2019, and Struway2: Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

just to point out I've spotted this very issue coming up today at Achraf Hakimi, who has played in Spain, Germany and Italy which all use these B team systems. So maybe an example for a subject overseen by various editors from different locations who want to use the box correctly but maybe haven't seen this discussion. Crowsus (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thoughts on Dany Mota? Sold to Juventus in 2019, directly sent to Juventus U23 (he was never even on the bench for Juventus), then sent on loan to Monza in 2020, then purchased by Monza the same year. Are we sure we don't want to use arrows for reserve teams...? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For me it would seem ludicrous not to put them in chronological order in these particular cases. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that for these specific cases (sandwiched between reserve + loans), we need to use arrows. I still believe we should use them throughout, but I understand people's arguments against using them in the case of players such as Joshua Zirkzee. In Italy (specifically at Juve), however, moving a player between the reserve team, temporary loans, loans with obligation to purchase, etc. is the norm. I ask the people who have participated in this discussion to revisit the usage of arrows. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have amended Mota as COMMONSENSE says it should be.

For these general cases, we have a choice - either it looks a bit funny by not quite being in chronological order, or we add factually incorrect information by saying a player was on loan from the youth team. As such, there is only one solution - the former. GiantSnowman 20:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes it seem as if Mota was purchased from Virtus Entella by Juventus U23 (which is also incorrect). The previous version with the arrow next to Juventus U23 didn't imply him being sent on loan to Monza from Juventus U23, rather from Juventus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Then order it as 'Juventus / Monza loan / Juventus U23' rather than 'Juventus U23 / Juventus / Monza loan'. The consensus above is clear - no arrow from parent club to reserve/youth team. GiantSnowman 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus above was also clear about chronological ordering, but you want to apply an exception to these specific cases. Same thing for arrows, there is consensus above for not using arrows but I want to apply an exception to these specific cases. For Zirkzee, the arrow is not needed, for Mota it is. Having Juventus / Monza (loan) / Juventus U23 is very misleading. An average reader will see that as "Juve sent him on loan to Monza, then got him back and moved him to their U23", when it is indeed the other way around. I don't see ANY disadvantage (in Mota's or Clemenza's cases) in using arrows. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, there is standard precedent for non-chronological display in the infobox (national teams); there is not the same for arrows. It seems like you are trying to get arrows in through the back door. GiantSnowman 16:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The precedent for arrows are the dual registration players in non-league football as Microwave Anarchist pointed out. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And where is the discussion/guidelines/consensus that says that is correct? GiantSnowman 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This kind of goes back to the original issue, but isn't playing for a reserve team a bit like dual registration in non-league football, with the player free to play for both teams. How should this be approached? Articles like this, i.e. Jamie Cureton and Jacob Gardiner-Smith use an arrow but given the consensus reached on reserve teams, should there be an arrow there or not? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. What about adding the arrow + "(reserve)" / "(B team)" / "(reserve team)"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

First thing I notice when looking at the page is that in the "Career statistics" section he is show to be on loan to the Juve U23's from Juve. How exactly does that work? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, he isn't and that is wrong. GiantSnowman 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed it to show that he wasn't on loan. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the infobox

It seems this boils down to the question of what we're trying to represent in the infobox. We only list club matches played and goals scored in league play and official national team results, so why are we trying to report on chain of custody or ownership. If the player has only played with a U-23 or a second team and is transferred to another team, why is the ownership being implied by the senior team? The club holds the contract. In the case of MLS and other leagues, the league holds the contract, but we're not trying to reflect the contract but league matches played. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, what's the purpose of showing loans in the infobox? The edge cases listed here seem to argue against trying to represent that here. If the loans are complicated, it makes sense to simplify it for all players.

if, however, the infobox is to be a summary of all details of the player's career, then national cup, continental play and friendlies should be presented as well. KISS principle? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but are you suggesting removing loans altogether from the infobox in lieu of a simple chronological sequence of the clubs a player has played in (with their respective league stats)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not suggesting removing loans, but trying to gain consensus on what we want to represent in the infobox. It should summarize the player's career. What exactly does it entail and how do we represent it.

We also seem to be conflating the first team with the club structure. "Roe is signed to the 77s. He never played for their first team, but did play for the reserve team. He is then loaned to Lost Dogs FC." I've seen comments suggesting that the 77s should be listed because they held the contract. OK, but there is no article for the club; there is one for the first and reserve team, and we've added info about the club to the first team article. Do you see the problem?

In short, I'm suggesting that we rethink the purpose of the infobox and the structure of articles, although the second part is a very large undertaking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is that the legal entity Juventus Football Club S.p.A. is different from both Juventus F.C. (a football team playing in Serie A) and Juventus F.C. Under-23 (a football team playing in Serie C), am I right? The Italian wiki seems to handle the infobox in an interesting manner, listing clubs only based on a simply chronological sequence. There are no "2012–2019 Juventus 0 (0)" in the infoboxes for players who Juventus has sent on loan to 7 successive clubs, rather the simple list of clubs one after the other. Leonardo Spinazzola (it-wiki) only shows Juventus from 2018, which is when he made his debut for the team. Whereas Leonardo Spinazzola (en-wiki) has Juventus from 2012, when he began his senior career on loan to Empoli. Changing the whole way we represent clubs and loans in the infobox would take a huge task-wide commitment, and I don't think it's a very viable suggestion at the moment. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, on it-wiki, successive loan+permanent spells of the same team are merged into one in the infobox. See the difference between José Machín (en-wiki) and José Machín (it-wiki). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think something to consider in this debate is that the second teams vary by country. For example, in Germany and France, the second teams seem to not have any restrictions on them, so a player of any age can sign for the club and only play for the second team. However, in the Netherlands and Italy (only Juventus to my knowledge), the 'jong' sides and Juventus' U23 side must have restrictions on ages, surely? As far as I'm aware, in all countries mentioned, a player can jump from one team to another freely, which is different from the USA, where it works more like a loan - so a San Jose Earthquakes player who is 'on loan' at affiliate side Reno 1868 cannot play for Reno without 'returning' to the Earthquakes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If we can categorise these different groups, we can come up with a consensus for each group, to best reflect each situation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian Pulisic and how we list positions

I noticed this edit in Christian Pulisic, where Joeykai undid an IP edit that changed Pulisic's position in the infobox from "Winger, attacking midfielder" to just "Forward" (the IP user linked to the disambiguation page rather than the football position page).

My first thought was, the IP edit wasn't entirely wrong. After all, the official club website lists him as just "Forward", and mention exactly where he lines up on the field in the main article body. But then, US Soccer lists him as "Midfielder". So at the risk of doing WP:OR, I checked out his positioning on FBREF, and he almost always lines up on the left of the forward 3 (in a 4-3-3) or front 4 (in a 4-2-3-1) for Chelsea, and all across the midfield 4 or 3 for the United States. Here are my takeaways:

• The infobox should just read "Forward/Midfielder", for the sake of simplicity and WP:RS. It's not exact, but it's not wrong and it's official. That should apply to all infoboxes - use the position designation used by their clubs and federations, instead of specific positions that are often WP:OR.
• We should really rethink how we do position articles, because treating wingers as midfielders doesn't match up with how they line up in modern football. When analysts talk about midfielders, they talk about the "3" in a 4-3-3 or the "2" in a 4-2-3-1. Wingers aren't part of the "3" or the "2" (I think we used to talk about wingers playing in a 4-4-2, but now, I think they're considered LM/RM, not LW/RW).
• Which is a longwinded way of saying, we should have a separate article for Winger (association football), which currently redirects to Midfielder#Winger, and have {{Main article}} links in both Forward (association football) and Midfielder.

Thoughts? Ytoyoda (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Traditionally speaking, positions in football have always boiled down to 4: GK, DF, MF, FW. Wingers are a bit of a "gray area" as you pointed out. I don't think the position "deserves" the same weight as the 4 other traditional positions. Pulisic has played 30/30 games in 18/19 as a winger (26 at LW, and 4 at RW), whereas in 19/20 he has played, for now, 28/29 as a winger (1 as a CAM, 3 as a RW, 25 as a LW). I only see one solution for Pulisic specifically, which is to put "Winger" (or "Left winger"). In 2 seasons he has only once played as a CAM, and, for me, a hybrid between a LM and LW is a left winger.

Small detail, there has been consensus to represent multiple positions in the infobox with commas (for example, "Winger, attacking midfielder"), not with slashes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Commas instead of slashes because of WP:SLASH. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As a thought to add to this, if Winger (association football) were to get its own article, shouldn't there be one for Full-back (association football) or Full back (association football)? I think it's a pretty distinct position, and I'm wondering what we should put in the infobox for players who have specifically played at full-back their whole career? Currently I'm putting Left-back or Right-back, and I'd like to know if there is consensus for this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the fact that, if winger were to get its own article, so should full-back (I personally think they shouldn't). For players who have played their whole career as a left-back, I would put left-back. If they have played only as a right-back, put right-back. If they are versatile full-back who have played in both positions (Mattia De Sciglio), put full-back. We should only really put Forward, Midfielder, or Defender if the player plays in multiple positions (more or less) equally. For example, a LW/ST/SS should have forward, and a CDM/LCM should have midfielder. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996: My thought on a standalone fullback article is maybe, but not necessarily. While FB and CB are distinct position and there's rarely an overlap, FBs are always listed as "DEFENDER" and as part of a back 4, unlike a winger who's sometimes a FW and sometimes a MF (granted, a fullback sometimes lines up as a wingback in a midfield 5, but that's more an exception than the rule). Here are my thoughts:

• In infoboxes, positions should be one or a combination of Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder and Forward. That's how club, federation and competition websites do it, and it's the least likely to cause any disagreements.
• The article body can talk about specific position, i.e. Trent John Alexander-Arnold (born 7 October 1998) is an English professional footballer who plays as a right-back — we can link to more specific articles there. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is consensus to only put one of the 4 main positions in the infobox, I wouldn't be completely against it. But I really don't see the harm in putting Full-back in the infobox for TAA. He's never played as a CB, and is widely known worldwide as a right-back. But, if for consistency reasons it is felt to be better to put Defender, then I'm ok with it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I second this, and I'm happy to go with consensus. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Funny" redirects

Could an Admin please delete the redirects recently created by Clash Jester, such as The Boring One. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If this user is actually a Burnley player like they claim, then it's dangerous of them to describe their boss as The Boring One. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't be silly, this is not a Burnley player; it's probably some teenager in India having a laugh. Not here to build an encyclopedia. JMHamo (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy is @A player of Burnley Football club (see discussion above). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

They've continued to make dubious edits since their block. I agree with JMHamo that they are WP:NOTHERE. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Raised at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 16:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Uggh, this again? This I have seen enough of already with this user content. The history of User talk pages they'd posted shown the user has changed the name but you've already covered the details I am thinking of.

I've already had a separate troll posing nonsense on my own talk page earlier on today which I am fed up of, this could also be a case where this may be a troll relating to a Burnley player, already says on this talk page as Ashley Barnes.

Until that user changes it's user page content, and what I see on WP:ANI, we should not have imposters editing Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Short name in info boxes

I was wondering why are we adding abbreviations to inboxes in short name field? For example on Liverpool FC in the short name field it's LFC. I don't know why we are using the field this way, and there is no exact documentation at Template:Infobox football club for it's use. And who would in general talk say Lfc, as a short name for Liverpool, it's kinda a bit strange use of that info box element this way in my opinion, and besides, Liverpool is just Liverpool, they don't even have a short name! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. It should only be used in instances such as "Juve" for Juventus, or "Spurs" for Tottenham Hotspur. Abbreviations such as JUV or TOT, respectively, aren't really "short names". If there is consensus, we can add a note to the club MoS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that parameter should be removed from the infobox as I don't really see what it adds. It was discussed previously and I think there was a loose consensus that this would be a good idea. Number 57 11:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Number 57 From reading that previous conversation it sounds like we shouldn't be using abbreviated versions of a name. I can see the use for the parameter, but it sounds like it can easily be miss-used. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The only instances of abbreviations we should be using are those that are also common "short names" (such as NYFC). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We should remove the 'short name' - if it's used prominently enough it is covered by the 'nickname' parameter. GiantSnowman 15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that short name and nickname are the same thing. To me, at least, Juve and la Vecchia Signora are different. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Juve is still a nickname. It's like "Boro" for Middlesbrough. Just because it is a shortened form of the full-length name doesn't mean it isn't a nickname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If you ask somebody (in the UK at least) what Juventus' nickname is, they will say 'Juve' and not 'la Vecchia Signora'. GiantSnowman 16:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Or "Bianconeri" – PeeJay 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a "common alias" (I know, not the most elegant title) or "also known as" field, especially for contiental clubs that have colloquial names used by the English-language media. Specific cases I can think of are

• "Sporting Lisbon" for Sporting CP
• "Spurs" for Tottenham Hotspur FC
• "Inter Milan" for Internazionale
• "Lyon" for Olympique Lyonnais
• "Athletic Bilbao" for Athletic Club
• "Red Star Belgrade" for Crvena Zvezda

They're not necessarily nicknames or abbreviations, but rather, names that would appear in media reports. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Goal FC / GOAL FC / Grand Ouest Association Lyonnaise Football Club article name

An exercise involving rebrand and absorption of some non-notable local clubs has been announced for one of our notable French clubs Monts d'Or Azergues Foot. The name they've rebranded to is Grand Ouest Association Lyonnaise Football Club or, predictably, GOAL FC. Problematically, the club themselves are using GOAL FC and Goal FC interchangeably. Reliable sources (which, unsurprisingly, are a nightmare to search for) are also using these terms interchangeably. fr.wiki have gone for the full club name for their article. Which name should we use?

Personally, I'd go for the full name in this case, but looking for other opinions. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Use the short name (GOAL FC or Goal FC) for the same reason we don't have an article located at Nooit opgeven altijd doorzetten, Aangenaam door vermaak en nuttig door ontspanning, Combinatie Breda. GiantSnowman 08:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, either GOAL FC or Goal FC. Which of the two depends on what reliable sources will call them. Do the club have some sort of social media account or logo yet? Something that shows how the name is spelled? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The club are using both interchangeably [10]. The logo is GOAL FC, but that's not unusual as many clubs in France use all capitals on their logo. Reliable sources differ Goal FC GOAL FC. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Given it's an acronym I'd go for GOAL FC and redirect the other (as well as the full name) to that. GiantSnowman 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Supercup Finals

As per this talk page, I would like to get consensus on whether or not Supercup finals are notable or not, and where to draw the line. Thanks for your input. --Janisterzaj (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Except each article is limited and you can probably have one article cover all the finals quite easily in my opinion, I don't think you need multiple articles and spread that information across so many articles. Especially if you're only going to be adding the team sheet and just that. Without decent prose, well... Govvy (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem with keeping those articles. Kante4 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#NFOOTY wrto. specific articles

The linked discussion could benefit from input from editors familiar with WP:NFOOTY, WP:FPL or Scandinavia. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison

Been unsourced for years, and it's not really a comparison article is it? Just feels like performance statistics. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tagged the page, and while it looks nice it smacks of OR, and as you said is completely unsourced. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OR doesn't really apply since it's not research, it's just an agglomeration of data points. Unsourced maybe, but not OR, and sourcing can be provided easily. – PeeJay 12:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking just to drop the comparison off the name and simple have the title UEFA Champions League clubs performance. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Kadhim Hussein

Does this guy actually pass NFooty or not? Govvy (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he played 10 matches for the Iraq NT; his full name is Kadhim Hussein Abdullah. I've cleaned the page up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought it was another player with a similar name, wasn't sure it was the Abdullah one. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)