Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 139

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

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

→

Link to disambiguation page

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. At 2005 in Ecuadorian football#Friendlies, at the 2005-12-27 Senegal-Ecuador match, there's a link to Mamadou Camara, a disambiguation page. The only person on that page who could be meant is Mamadou Camara (footballer, born 1988), who, while French, is of Senegalese descent. However, he would have been a bit young to play for a national team in 2005 (I think), and more importantly, I can't find any evidence of him having played for the Senegalese national team, so I'm not sure. Can anyone help me solve this? Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Did this match even happen? There's no record on Soccerway of it and even the "other goalscorer" for Senegal is listed as Sidi Keita who played for Mali, not Senegal. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF gives the scorers as Massar Camara and Sidy Keita. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the source Struway2 --SuperJew (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And now after more searching, I see where the information might be from. The RSSF's list of Ecuador's International Results for 2005 has the information as it was previously in the article. What do we do in such a situation when there is a discrepancy between sources (in this case the same publisher)? --SuperJew (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think in this specific case, the LG Cup-specific source is more recent than the Ecuador general source (not by much), and authored by the statistician who has done all the other LG Cup pages, so is IMO more likely to be correct. If the issue was with an Ecuadorian player, I might lean the other way. But that's just my opinion.

In general, if there's a discrepancy, editors assess the quality of the source, and if one is clearly more likely to be right (more reliable, or a general source consistent with subject-specific sources, or consistent with primary sources), they pick that one. If there's nothing to choose, add a note listing the alternatives attributed to their various sources, and (optionally, at their discretion) pick one of the alternatives to go in the article alongside the note. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To everyone above: many thanks for solving this one! Lennart97 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei or Taiwan in Infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

How should the Chinese Taipei national football team be referred to in the infobox. A page I was editing, I know a few months ago it said Chinese Taipei, but at some point someone changed to Taiwan. Before changing it back, I figured I'd come here. The national team's page is under Chinese Taipei, but the country itself's wikipedia page is Taiwan. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say Chinese Taipei in line with the article's name. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

China don't allow Taiwan to call themselves Taiwan at the Olympics on threat of invasion. So as a result they have the dumb official name of Chinese Taipei, which sounds like a Pro Evo knock off version of Taiwan.--Echetus Xe 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the context. The national team was known as, and competed as, Taiwan until round about 1982/83 (I'm not sure the exact date it changed). Anything prior to that should be Taiwan and anything after should be Chinese Taipei. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should call the article Taiwan national football team in line with the Taiwan article, but make it clear in the first line of the lead that the team competes in international competitions under the name Chinese Taipei due to political issues. – Pee Jay 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes I remember that it used to be Taiwan officially during the 70s-80s. Is there a reason why Chinese Taipei national football team is located there despite the country being located at Taiwan? We have South Korea national football team and North Korea national football team, not Korea Republic national football team and DPR Korea national football team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I assumed it was because of FIFA's official names, but yeah North and South Korea's FIFA names are different to the article titles. Chinese Taipei is like England being called British London or something so I wouldn't opposed to a page move.--Echetus Xe 20:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you start an RM, I will support the move of England to British London ;) --SuperJew (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should use Taiwan rather than Chinese Taipei because Chinese Taipei is a stupid name and everyone just calls the country Taiwan anyway. I would also support moving the article should anyone start an RM. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that move from England to British London should happen for WP:APRILFOOLS lol RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that "Country at the Olympics" articles for Taiwan also use Chinese Taipei (for example Chinese Taipei at the Olympics). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But they also use North Korea at the Olympics and South Korea at the Olympics despite the IOC referring to them as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea" respectively. – Pee Jay 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

At some point (before 1970) Taiwan use ROC or Republic of China or just "China" as their own name.... For modern usage may be Chinese Taipei? or Taiwan, or Republic of China (Taiwan)? Matthew hk (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

They used ROC as they were the Chinese government in exile. They've been using Chinese Taipei as that is the only way that modern China will allow them to compete in international competitions (namely the Olympics) as modern China still believe that Taiwan is part of Chinese sovereignty. Taipei is just the capital of Taiwan. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, before 1970, The ROC (Taiwan) national football team, actually enlisted a lot of Hong Kong born and based footballer. I am not sure how English media to describe the team for that era, but Chinese language (pro Taiwan and Hong Kong) source use ROC (or the Chinese name of ROC) Matthew hk (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we start a move request to move Chinese Taipei national football team to Taiwan national football team? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do--Echetus Xe 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That being said... they are the Chinese Taipei Football Association and are registered as such by both FIFA and the IOC Felixsv7 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA also uses Korea DPR and Republic of Korea, yet we use the name where the country's article is located per WP:COMMONNAME. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've started a move request. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Career Stats Table - midseason transfer - missed competition

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

I know typically we use the dash if a team did not participate in a certain type of competition for that year (i.e. Continental column) and 0 0 if the team participated but the player did not play in any of the matches. What do we do if a club participated in the competition, but they were eliminated prior to the player arriving (for example, team was eliminated in November, player joined the roster in January)? I've usually put 0 0 because the club was involved in that competition even though the player wasn't eligible to play for the team in the competition because by the time he arrived they were already out. For example, Gabriel Jesus for Man City for the 16-17 EFL Cup, they were already eliminated by the time he joined. It currently has a Dash, is that the righ way or should it be 0 0? RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally use a dash, as the player couldn't physically play in the competition. To me, a dash means that the player couldn't have ever played, while 0 0 means that he was called up but didn't play. I don't think there is consensus on this though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme1499 - a dash if the player isn't eligible to be called-up (which includes also if a player switches club in the league mid-season after representing the first club in the cup so they can't represent the second club in the cup), while 0 0 is if the player was eligible but didn't play. --SuperJew (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer it blank i.e. '0's; dash implies (to me) that 'club did not participate in this competition at all', not 'player was not eligible'. Use of dashes is confusing. Giant Snowman 11:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dash for me aswell, explained above. Kante4 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I always use dashes for these situations. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Snowman, dashes are confusing and unnecessary. But if editors want to spend their time putting them into competition spaces where players/teams haven't been eligible/present then that's fine.--Echetus Xe 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nehme1499. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Agbonlahor

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. Could others please keep an eye on Gabriel Agbonlahor? An IP has been making inaccurate changes. I've reverted them multiple times – I might run to the risk of breaching 3RR – and they have continued after I posted an explanation to their Talk page. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Warned the user and added page to my watchlist. Giant Snowman 11:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Robby.is.on (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help for suspected stale userspace drafts that are hoaxes

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help me sort out userpsace drafts made by Special:Contributions/Kyle Nightingale, Special:Contributions/Mahdi Akhtar and Special:Contributions/Ayaz1989. Came across these users after finding a draft in the stale userpsace drafts on Andrea De Luca (footballer) that I suspect is a hoax. Looking at the contributions, I saw that Ayaz1989 edited drafts by Kyle Nightingale. In Kyle Nightingale's contributions, they've edited drafts by Ayaz1989 and Mahdi Akhtar while acknowledging they know each other. Of these users, I suspect at least Andrea De Luca, 1981 Arabian Gulf Cup and 2016 FIFA Freestyle World Cup are hoaxes. Problem is, it's possible that some of the drafts made by these users like Augusto Billard are real but are buried within the hoaxes. Any footy experts in European, African, or Australian footballers could help me sort out all of the userspace drafts made by these 3 users to determine which are real or hoaxes? Thanks!--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth posting a list, then everybody won't be looking at the same ones? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The drafts under Mahdi Akhtar are all hoaxes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Fair enough. Then it'd be easier to see which ones are OK/not ok.

@Struway2: Thanks for letting me know about Mahdi Akhtar. Are the 3 that Kyle Nightinggale took over (Ricky Gallagher, Jens Moares and Christmas Island national football team) hoaxes as well? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there any policy against having such content in one's userspace? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: @Gricehead: Of the three remaining bluelinks, are they real ones? If so, then that's all apart from the other ones I have speedy nominated at G3. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Raducio King is a real futsal player, as ref#3 in the draft verifies. I wouldn't know whether the content is genuine or not.
There is a real Castilla-La Mancha autonomous football team, see es:Selección de fútbol de Castilla-La Mancha, but the content of the draft is pure invention.
According to our article, the Uzbekistan Second League is (now) the fourth tier of Uzbekistan football, and relegated teams go to regional competitions, so there doesn't appear to be an Uzbekistan Third League. And there's no sign that football teams in that country have English-style names like Tashkent Rovers and Juma Town F.C.

So I'd say 2 and 3 are hoaxes, but I don't know enough the topic of #1 to express a view. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Raducio King has a 11v11 football career as well as a Futsal career. I can't verify the nickname, nor the stats for Manchester Futsal (although I note that the number of goals was in the Manchester Futsal Club article, unsourced, before the draft was created. He has a soccerway profile showing he has played in the Dutch Derde division, and he appears to have had a season with Lynx FC in the top level Gibraltar division. Gricehead (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gricehead: @Struway2: Ok. I'll leave King alone then. Thank you both fot thr help! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

List of X players vs All time X roster

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As far as I can see, the standard format for a list of a club's players is 'List of X players', regardless of country, except it seems if you are American, in which case it's 'All time X roster'. Why? Giant Snowman 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because American sports articles are a law unto themselves. That would typically refer to games like American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey, but clearly they've decided that soccer is included in that too for MLS articles. – Pee Jay 22:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

UEFA club coefficient ranking

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can I ask, were we removing that from club article pages? Govvy (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. There was a discussion on this about six months ago, and a consensus wasn't really established. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

H2H on rivalry pages

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

So this user, registered in 2005 (almost got my respect for seniority) but oddly only made 10K-ish edits over 15 years, came out of nowhere and keep reverting H2H records on Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for the past days. He said the rivalry "is dead", while there are 4 standalone articles about 4 league matches involving the sides (the most against the same team for both teams), suggesting this is a real deal. Should H2H records be in any rivalry articles? If not, it should be erased from all articles, e.g. Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, Le Classique, or Derby della Madonnina as well. Flix11 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, it should not matter how many edits I've made in the past 15 years. It's quality, not quantity, and if I've come "out of nowhere", then I do apologise -- some of us don't edit regularly. As someone who got the rivalry page to GA status from this, I will naturally have vested interest in what is added and omitted from the page. In my opinion the rivalry is "dead", if you actually bothered to read the prose it states that since 2005 the animosity isn't what it was. You are right, there are standalone articles about the teams, and that's why I worked to get these articles grouped together for a GAT nomination. But what the article doesn't need every single result between the two sides in the Premier League. Wikipedia is not a statistics directory, but a head-to-head table like this:

Competition	Played	Arsenal wins	Drawn	Manchester United wins	Arsenal goals	Manchester United goals
Football League/Premier League	204	72	49	83	282	305
FA Cup	16	6	2	8	20	22
Football League Cup / EFL Cup	6	2	0	4	8	15
Football League Centenary Trophy	1	1	0	0	2	1
FA Charity Shield / FA Community Shield	6	4	2	0	14	7
UEFA Champions League	2	0	0	2	1	4
Total	235	85	53	97	327	354

is perfectly fine. But a list of Premier League results is not; you can redirect the reader to 11v11. The other issue is there is a recency bias, why are Premier League scorelines only included and not Football League (when the rivalry 'started'?). And your argument that all the Premier League/Community Shield/European scorelines between the two sides should be listed because that's the case with the Chelsea/Arsenal rivalry doesn't stack up. Firstly, it doesn't meet the WP:GA criteria, and secondly if I was going to work on that page I'd focus on the prose more. There are times when you do need to list the scoreline, but the rivalry is all about on the pitch fracases and incidents and that is what should be focussed. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the thing about the Man United-Arsenal "rivalry" is that it's simply a media-inspired one, starting in the Sky era and, it seems, ending in it a few years later. A genuine rivalry would have years of history behind it. Ask any Man Utd fan whose knowledge goes back to before the Sky era who their rivals are and Arsenal will come at least fourth behind Liverpool, City and Leeds whilst for an Arsenal fan Spurs and Chelsea would be higher up the list. Given this, the H2H results being listed for only the PL era does have a certain bizarre logic to it (though on that basis you could argue that the results from 1996 to 2005 would do just as well, as that's when Sky mostly stopped hyping it as well). But really, the summary box above would be far the better arrangement. WP:NOTSTATS is a thing. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue for the removal of the entire statistics sections, or at least a major overhaul. The prose of the article mentions Fergie thinking the rivalry started in 1987. The 1990 brawl was also a major turning point. But the article clearly details that it was when Wenger arrived that the actual rivalry blew up. So what does an FA Cup game from the 1930's have to do with this rivalry, or the 1948 Charity Shield? Does it matter that George Graham and Brian Kidd played for both sides when the rivalry didn't even exist? The honours section too, Arsenal won eight or nine of their league titles before the rivalry began. It's a rivalry from a specific point in history, you can't retroactively place significance or importance on events that had no actual effect on the rivalry, and it's certainly not an ongoing thing either. ItsKesha (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Rivalries wax and wane, have different start dates, reasons for their origin etc. It doesn't change that when discussing todays rivalries earlier fixtures / competitions / outcomes are often referred to (particularly comparisons of trophies won, or games won against each other). Particularly rivalries often only start after a sequence of competitions / outcomes, or specific co-location, or grievance.

For context the Crystal Palace vs Wimbledon rivalry was short-lived, but that wouldn't preclude a new article starting and / or referring to the historical nature of it. In contrast the "Arsenal–Liverpool rivalry" is utterly transient, and would be based around 1 or 2 matches (or results of certain seasons, i.e. 1989 & 1991 obviously) over decades probably and likely wouldn't find enough sources to support a broader discussion of. In contrast there are plenty of articles about Arsenal vs Man Utd discussing it in broader context of historical head-to-heads[1][2][3] and individuals such as Brian Talbot Their battles in recent years have occasionally spilled over into outright hostility but Talbot, now manager of Oxford, says that is nothing new. "The rivalry was just as intense in my day - it just wasn't publicised so much," he added. "There is so much media coverage and attention on Premiership players nowadays, they hype it all up and the players go along with it. In our day there were hardly any live games apart from the cup finals, and nowhere near as many back pages devoted to it."[4] Koncorde (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ItsKesha:, @Black Kite: then delete all similar stats then, no partial upholding of the nostats. Flix11 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really. United's rivalries with Liverpool and City have always existed and are still ongoing, they aren't confined to a period of about 15-20 years as the rivalry with Arsenal obviously is. They may have had classic matches and fierce encounters in the past, but that doesn't make it a part of the rivalry. One of the most revered matches in history was Liverpool 4-3 Newcastle, if they suddenly developed a rivalry now, you wouldn't retroactively include that match as being part of it. In fact, the same should apply to the Liverpool-City rivalry, it's only existed for about eight years. ItsKesha (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: And yet the Liverpool-City has the match results. Flix11 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And it's daft that it does include them. I don't know why you think something that isn't part of the rivalry should be mentioned on these pages. If you're going to have a statistics section and a results section included in a page about a rivalry, it should only concern when the rivalry existed and nothing else. ItsKesha (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone created a Liverpool vs Newcastle rivalry then I very much think any article written about the rivalry will almost certainly mention those games, as most commentators and sources would probably mention it too (to quote one "Perhaps the scintillating match in 1996 alone would justify Newcastle's inclusion on this list.").[5][6][7][8] Koncorde (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Flix11:, in some cases, the reader would benefit from seeing the scoreline, which in itself may carry importance (like Liverpool's biggest league win, or Arsenal's heaviest defeat). I'm arguing the reader does not need to see a scoreline in an FA Cup tie in February 2003, tucked away in the statistics section because there is no value in including that. The reader can go to 11v11, or a club's season article page if they want to see a list of scorelines. Something like the table above, which summarises the head-to-head record in the FA Cup, is clearer and concise. You are right to call for WP:CONSISTENCY across the board, but you can't treat all rivalries the same, and what needs to be included/omitted. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-league managerial stats, re Lee Clark

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Last night an IP and then a newly registered editor, User:Hazelhouse1988, removed Lee Clark's managerial stats for his spell as manager of the non-league Blyth Spartans, with edit summaries saying Managerial Statistics for full time football only. I gave them a welcome/warning message about removal of content. The third time, they removed the (minimal) prose about his spell at Spartans as well as the stats, and I gave them a level 3 warning. After I'd logged out for the night, they left a message at my talk page that said "His managerial Statistics from non league should not be published as all managerial candidates from same level do not".

Is there anything in their argument? I've notified them of this discussion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's nonsense. If the information is available and reliably sourced we should include it. The fact that other articles don't include the info is irrelevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

And removing the prose section entirely, assuming it wasn't done by accident (which it doesn't look like it was) is out-and-out vandalism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

They're probably just bitter that their unsourced managerial stats on another page have been removed.--Echetus Xe 13:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

IFFHS as a reliable source?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So IFFHS have just announced teams of the decades which has meant IP has gone and added this as honours to player articles. So https://www.iffhs.de/ isn't listed on the reliable football sources but seeing as they have their own article on Wikipedia I assume they are and this might be a new thing? NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the fourth source listed on the "reliable football sources" page ;) --Echetus Xe 13:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: D'oh! I blame it the fact it was 1am that I missed that. Thanks NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fully Professional Bludgeoning

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I feared a few weeks back when I read the ongoing discussion, Bring back Daz Sampson is not only trying to limit the number of new players being created the minute they appear in leagues which may not meet WP:FPL in modern times, but is now trying to blanket-delete articles for the finest players of the Victorian age, for example today already I have seen PRODs removed from a Preston Invincible and an FA Cup winner with 138 top flight appearances, both articles with sourcing that was OK btw, although undoubtedly with room for improvement in that area. This will no doubt continue unless some other notability guideline can be introduced for players of the past who made significant achievements in the game. If recentism shouldn't be applied to confer notability on the entire Football League since 1888 retrospectively, equally a blanket assumption of non-notability should not be made for all players prior to 1961 or whatever the proposal is when their place in the history of the game, particularly in pre-WWI Britain when that's practically the only place it was played, can be readily seen to be important. To be honest, I consider BBDS's behaviour here to be vindictive. They are attempting to apply a guideline brought in to prevent wave upon wave of current players in lower leagues being added - although I appreciate this encourages the 'lowest threshold attained' route where a 10 minute sub in League Two / Scottish Championship (until recently changed) would be enough - but which is not, in my view, to be used for the manner they are employing. The articles above have existed on here for a dozen years apiece, are their subjects suddenly not notable due to the percentage of professionals in the league at that point? Nonsense. We're not talking about players scraping by on a couple of FL appearances here, were talking about champions of their age. If that's the rule, change the rule. Crowsus (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have concerns about BBDS's sudden glut of PRODs/AFDs and the motivations behind them then I suggest you raise it directly with them, and if you don't make any progress in reaching resolution, raise at ANI for wider consideration. FWIW I think some of the AFDs have been good and I have supported deletion, some have been questionable, but overall I do question their motives and think it's all a bit POINTy. I do have serious concerns about them nominating e.g. Tom Pearson (footballer) who is clearly notable (and NFOOTBALL has not changed to throw any doubt on the notability of playing in the Football League, let alone 138 appearances!, unlike the Norwegian articles...) Giant Snowman 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Morning all. Can we have some additional eyes and opinions on the rivalry page. There has been long established wording which was challenged (rightly) due to the existing sourcing not being explicitly clear. There is a discussion on the talk page already between myself, PeeJay and Haldraper, where I have presented the better part of 30 sources (both reliable sources, on occasion referencing statements by players / managers, and colloquial use by other sources). I am sure if I look even more I will find many more examples using variety of the phrasing. The initial argument was one of WP:WEASEL regarding the use of "considered" which is pretty much the only word that could be used in this situation. Then WP:SYNTH was argued, but numerous sources all use the exact wording / make the same assertion. Koncorde (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a nice discussion going on, but Haldraper appears to have stopped paying any attention to it and has resumed his edit warring. – Pee Jay 13:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

He stopped replying, so I gave him 4 more days then restored the content changing "famous" to "biggest" to avoid any further synthy claims and added the sources to hand. Koncorde (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think having 14 citations for that one sentence might be WP:OVERKILL. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur - having 22 references in a three-sentence paragraph looks utterly ridiculous. Surely there must be a better way to do that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time we had a similar number of references to support the fact that Tim Howard was born in North Brunswick, New Jersey. How about we just select a few of the best ones and leave three or four at most in place? – Pee Jay 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is purposely overkill - but it is to demonstrate to anyone possibly seeing the edit-war what content is available to support the position. My intention is to write a subsection which will discuss the rivalry itself, move the sources there / condense them, and then leave a refnote or similar at the top, but first I needed to establish the content. Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the content in this instance, but if it's something where multiple citations can be useful to demonstrate a subjective point, it could maybe put in an {{efn|}} note which would then display the references fully within it instead of ruining the display with a lot of [1][2][3][4][5]s? Just an idea. Crowsus (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the plan. I just wanted people to be able to see / review, and then I will sort out formatting. Koncorde (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I need some advice. You would guys say that these articles pass GNG?
Stéphane Masala, Živko Lukić, and Armando Monteiro (footballer). Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about Masala but the other two look like they pass NFOOTBALL and probably just about pass GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

PSG played in the second division in the 70s, so they wouldn't pass NFOOTY. No idea about GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone start a deletion discussion for all three? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Lukic is notable because of this and this. Not too sure about the other two so I've started a discussion so people can express their opinions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't have any contemporary sources at the moment so it is hard to judge. Hopefully there are some french speakers with access to newspaper archives who can help. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Liga FPD (Costa Rica)

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey guys, Question regarding league appearances and inconsistencies between various sources. Relating to Óscar Granados, could someone confirm which of the following two sources is accurate - 1. [9], 2. [10]. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are only 44 rounds in the Costa Rican league. Soccerway shows 52 apps in season 2017-18. Simione001 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure @Simione001:, those 38 matches was on the regular season. The others on Playoffs ("Cuadrangular apertura" y "Cuadrangular clausura"), and the finals (4 matches, 2 clausura and 2 apertura). 1. Greetings. Pincheira22 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so Soccerway is correct for infobox purposes? Simione001 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In the infobox only league stats should be displayed, not league + play-offs. Soccerway often combines the two: you should try to only put the league games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Period in {{updated}}

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As of match played 7 February 2021

As of match played 7 February 2021.

I've always omitted the period, as the sentence "as of match played 7 February 2021" isn't "complete". Same logic for image captions: "Messi with Barcelona in 2020" doesn't need a full stop, while "Messi scored 40 goals for Barcelona in 2020." does. Is what I'm saying correct? I'm asking because often times I see edits where people add the period at the end of the updated template. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It makes zero difference either way. Editing them in is pointless, editing them out is pointless. Giant Snowman 16:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a very minor thing, not worth making a specific edit over, but I agree with you that it's correct to leave it out. – Pee Jay 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like @Mediocre Legacy: disagrees - here and here... Giant Snowman 12:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I always omit the period, but it's a minor thing. Kante4 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkish football

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if anyone knows of the best websites for English written match reports, for Turkish football? Govvy (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

By match reports do you mean "prose", or line-ups, stats, etc.? For the latter globalsportsarchive is very reliable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of improvement for Aaron Lennons time at Burnley, wanted to find some good sources for his time in Turkey, debut, saw he got sent off in one game. heh, wanted to add that. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cup finals

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. By any chance, does playing in a major cup final (like the Coupe de France final) with a team in a non-professional league make a player notable? Is there an exception for cup finals? Because a player like Fabrice Baron played in the 2000 Coupe de France Final with a 3rd/4th tier team against a professional team. Would we say this match is professional? If not, I will delete this article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I imagine a player playing in a national final would receive significant coverage, so they could be notable per GNG... Giant Snowman 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My belief is that Baron would be required to have significant coverage to have an article. Apologies if that is a bit harsh. I imagine he might have got enough coverage, though, even if it is offline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I just want to know what to do, because I'm not sure. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any ways of searching through French newspapers to see if he ever got significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know any. But I think we should make a general decision: I have several other articles that I am waiting to Db-self depending on the outcome of this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you want me to do an AfD for this one to see if there is consensus that the cup final is enough to presume notability in the absence of any accessible coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

British Home Championship for leagues

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Looking to create a new article. There was an International Championship between the top British leagues between 1911 and 1914. I've got only one mention of it in The Official Centenary History of the Southern League. I can obviously create an annual championship from results listed on rsssf but would like more background reading and references. achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have genuinely never heard of this and would be intrigued to hear more...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaguely recall reading about this, might be on that Before The D site. I think it was a round robin, but they played each other every year anyway and over time it's been forgotten that it was for slightly more than the annual bragging rights because it doesn't look out of place on the list. London Hearts have a page for each SFL match, and usually there's links to scans of media reports (usually The Scotsman), and if that fails usually The Herald's archive has something. There will probably be a fair amount on the BNA for those that (unlike me) have access to that. Achangeisasgoodasa, if you need a hand (my research will be based around the amateurish methods described above) give me a shout. Crowsus (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Think I will subscribe to BNA, for other reasons, even though its ocr seems to suck. The only thing with this topic is I don't even have a name for the championship! It would be good to think there was at least something official in the 4 Leagues minutes. achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RWDM47

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am curious, should the page be on RWDM47 or should it be moved too RWD Molenbeek. From what I see on google results, I would of thought that RWD Molenbeek is the COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've always known it as 'RWD Molenbeek', but it should be 'R.W.D. Molenbeek' in line with Belgian club naming conventions? Giant Snowman 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that problem is that R.W.D. Molenbeek is a different article of the previous version of the club. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) RWDM47 are a phoenix club of R.W.D. Molenbeek so there would to be some sort of disambiguation. For whatever reason, the 47 doesn't seem part of the official name, it might be part of the common name though. At the very least it should either be at R.W.D. Molenbeek (2015) or R.W.D. Molenbeek 47. If the phoenix club is the primary topic however, then it should be at R.W.D. Molenbeek and the old club moved to R.W.D. Molenbeek (1909). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ye it make more sense to move the articles to be date ranged. I've often messed up moves like that, maybe someone with move rights can fix it. Govvy (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably worth raising at WP:RM. Giant Snowman 12:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In a further confusion, we also have an article K. Standaard Wetteren, which was the name RWDM47 was called beforehand. So maybe that should be merged into RWDM47 too. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Accident in Member Page

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I must have done something in the member page while adding my name. It seems like someone edited at the same time as me and now all the names are in 'Former Members'. I'm so sorry for the trouble but can anyone take a look to fix it? It seems minor but I can't spot the fix. Thanks. Kwafsdnva (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like @Nehme1499: has beaten me to it! Giant Snowman 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I forgot to report here. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Serbia (and Montenegro) in the infobox, again

Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments10 people in discussion

We had a discussion a couple of months ago about edit warring to separate appearances for Serbia and Montenegro from those for Serbia, when Robby.is.on was close to 3RR. I'm having the same issue at Nikola Žigić, where a couple of IPs and now a registered user have merged them. I posted to the talk page, and invited one of the IPs to visit that page. Some advice would be helpful... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember that discussion and remember looking into it more afterwards. Serbia has inherited the S&M footballing history and is deemed to be the continuation, so all caps being listed under Serbia is probably correct. Similar to the discussion above about club name changes, we don't split those, just list the new names. So including S&M caps under Serbia is fine. It's not considered to be a break and then two new nations started, only Montenegro is deemed to have started fresh. (Note: I was on the opposite side in the previous discussion) RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As per above: if a NT is a continuation of a previous one according to FIFA (Soviet Union -> Russia, West Germany -> Germany, S&M -> Serbia), we merge the two under the most recent name (so merge the stats under Serbia). If, instead, the person first played for S&M, then for Montenegro, we would have separate NTs as there is officially no continuity between them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Serbia is the legal successor team (in that they inherit the historical records) but they are legally a separate team. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So you would also separate West Germany/Germany, Macedonia/North Macedonia, Soviet Union/Russia, etc.? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Macedonia was just a change of the country name, no change in territory or legal/juristictional status of the national FA. And yes I would, just like we separate Wimbledon F.C. and MK Dons, similar principle. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I still believe they should be combined under Serbia, but a compromise could be to list it all under Serbia, but include a note to say X number of games were played as part of S&M/FYR Yugoslavia. Ex. "Serbia^[a] 45(5)" with the note as (includes 25 matches and 3 goals played as Serbia & Montenegro) RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was hoping for informed advice on how to proceed after edit-warring and refusal of the other party/ies (not sure how many individuals there are) to discuss, in the face of edit summaries like "Violation of wikipedia rules" and, particularly, "Bah, so sorry, but you dont know the law, and uefa rules". As far as I'm concerned, I was following the sources and the apparent consensus at the earlier discussion, but "being right" wouldn't justify me edit warring. Struway2 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the best way to decide is if there are separate national team articles. For example, West Germany redirects to Germany and Macedonia redirects to North Macedonia, therefore the statistics should be combined. There are separate articles for Russia (Russian Empire → Soviet Union → CIS → Russia) and Serbia (KSCS/Yugoslavia → FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro → Serbia), so the statistics should be separated. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separated for all (exception Macedonia/North Macedonia) teams, even West Germany/Germany et al. These were distinct legal.political entities, they didn't just change their name (exception Macedonia/North Macedonia as that is literally just a name change). Giant Snowman 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As for practical advice - take it to the talk page? If they won't engage then try WP:ANEW or WP:DR? Giant Snowman 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please people, I see you do not know the law and the rules, it is obvious that Serbian national team is legal successor of FSJ and FSSCG. All people from Serbia and region know that, and there is really nothing to discuss about, just read - https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/52712/ugasen-fudbalski-savez-scg.php – Nikgudz 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That says (assuming google translate is correct) the S&M FA went under "separation into two independent organizations" and that Serbia is the legal successor to it. So they are openly admitting they are a separate FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nikgudz: your editing is disruptive and there is clear consensus that the statistics should be separated. Your repeated talk of "law and rules" is nothing more than Serb nationalism. No place for it here or elsewhere. Giant Snowman 11:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Knowing rules and law is "Serbian nationalism" - facepalm. So, Serbia is legal successor and there is nothing more to say or arbitrarily interpret. See it again - https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/52712/ugasen-fudbalski-savez-scg.php. Also - https://fss.rs/selekcije/a-selekcija/?pismo=lat - here you can see all time lists, where everyone from Kingdom of Yugoslavia to these days are in unified list of selectors, appearances and scorers. It IS the same national footnall team, weather you like it or not. Nikgudz 13:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is Serbia and Montenegro national football team and there is Serbia national football team - TWO teams. Giant Snowman 13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Serbia national team was a continuation of the Serbia & Montenegro national team, so players with caps for Serbia & Montenegro continued to add caps to that total if there were capped by Serbia afterwards, whereas the Montenegro team started from scratch. Same with East Germany being absorbed into Germany again. The "new" German team didn't start from scratch - players who were capped for Germany before and after reunification all had their caps awarded by the German Football Association, so their totals continued, whereas the East Germans who joined the team had to start from zero. – Pee Jay 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if You say so, sky is orange and water is black. Nikgudz 14:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In those all-time lists, why does the numbered list of Serbia matches start at #1 with the friendly against Czech Republic in 2006? Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, yes and Stjepan Bobek also has 38 goals for SERBIA from 2006. XD Please, if You want to do something wrong You will find 100 ways to do so. I am trying to tell You the facts. You have all the matches here if You are interested - http://www.reprezentacija.rs/utakmice-reprezentacije-1920-1929/ ...Nikgudz 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see from the 2000-2009 list that the matches from 2003 up to the 2006 World Cup are listed as played by the SCG team. If the Serbian federation can and do list them under the name of SCG, why shouldn't we? Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, we could say it is Serbia/SCG team for example Nikola Žigić: SCG/Serbia 57 caps 20 goals. But to separate statistics as if there is no continuity between national team (like he stopped playing for Serbia and started playing for Montenegro or some other country) - simply does not correspond to the facts. Same with FRY/SCG/Serbia national team. We could write like that, but not separate columns. Nikgudz 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with it being presented like that. Perhaps with a note to tell the general reader why it looks like there are two teams on the same row. Struway2 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)are not a good solution

Agree with the above. That is constructive way of resolving some problem, not to impose a solution that has no basis in rules and facts. Nikgudz 17:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is the outcome, which method would be more preferable? A note or a slash? I created a sample template here with two possibilities. Personally I prefer the note, but if the slash is used I believe it should say Serbia and Montenegro not SCG. Personally, I wouldn't assume people would know that SCG means Serbia and Montenegro. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Note, as we do for clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And if you go down the slash/note route (which I don't agree with), to which national team are you going to link, and why? Giant Snowman 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The most recent one, following the same logic for clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

if you go the slash route why not link to both? Link each one on either side of the slash? RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't go the slash route, I prefer to use a note. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the only reason I had no issue with that presentation was because it included the historically correct names of both teams, then slash and note for me. The Serbia and Montenegro needs to be visible, and the reason for two teams having one set of stats needs explaining. We're aiming at the general reader, who might know even less than I do about the subtleties of former Yugoslavia and its football. Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, choose the abbreviation you think will be the most recognizable if you want to write FRY instead of Yugoslavia or SCG (or whatever) for Serbia and Montenegro. My point was that separated columns are not a good solution by any means. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:RedPatchBoy/sandbox2 - The best way I think is the first way, but the second way is also good. Nikgudz 23:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to piggyback on this discussion as people who've commented here are likely to have an opinion: Serbia's record section lists players that played for Serbia before 2006 however Czechia and Russia do not. I believe that the Serbian page has the right way of listing players from former iterations of its country (in that it just includes them, much like DR Congo or Germany) however I wanted to get a general consensus. Am happy to begin a new chat if necessary. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it varies from nation to nation. Whereas Serbia alone is considered the successor to the records of Serbia & Montenegro and Yugoslavia (as though the other nations splintered off from the parent), I think Czechia and Slovakia are considered equal inheritors of the record of Czechoslovakia. DR Congo is irrelevant as it is just Zaire under a different name, no change of territory or anything. – Pee Jay 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems fair if a country retains the same borders and just changes its name like DRC or North Macedonia. What about Russia? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Czech Republic NT is the successor of the Czechoslovakia NT, Slovakia is considered separate. You can see it in last paragraph of intro for the Czechoslovakia page.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Russia is the same as Serbia, but I'd need to check. – Pee Jay 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Results by round – Double gameweeks

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

How would I handle a double gameweek in a table like this? WDM10 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't include that section as this season is a clusterf***? That's my opinion ;) --SuperJew (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha I'm with you there tbh. With the matches should I put the new rounds as the rounds (even though they double up)? WDM10 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you can leave the official round number (as it appears on the A-League site), just have the matches in chronological order. I think some places listed it as match week number (though now I'm not sure if that was something official or just some fans/tipping comps on Twitter). --SuperJew (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool thanks for your help. WDM10 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you should remove the "results by round" section. This phenomenon isn't unique to this season; matches get postponed all the time and end up being played months after they were supposed to, which creates issues like this. The calendar just doesn't match up neatly enough for it to make sense. Besides, if you have the matches in order (whether using a table or the godawful collapsible footballbox), people can see what the results were at a glance anyway. – Pee Jay 12:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: I think what the "results by round" section adds (in a normal season with few if any postponed matches) is a glance of how the position changed over time. --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You haven't taken a look at the 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season article then? If people just stopped using the {{footballbox collapsible}} template and used a table, you could include more relevant info and less irrelevant info in a more efficient manner. – Pee Jay 15:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Otoh, the scores and h/a is annoying to work out at first, no info about opposition scorers, no referee for some reason. And btw, if it is already a table, why not have inline refs to help combat link rot (which is one of my major issues with footballbox if anything)? --SuperJew (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has a space for the match referee so there's really no reason not to include it. There's also no reason not to use inline citations within the football box template (when used appropriately – which means sparingly if at all within club season articles), it's just laziness that some think they can just put a link in the report parameter and not properly reference it. It's also lazy not to properly reference a table. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tried adding the referee to the table in the past but it was resisted. I'm not saying it's perfect, but its issues are far smaller than the ones the template has. Btw, the opposition goalscorers are pretty irrelevant to the article on a specific club. If you look at SoccerAssociation, which is a highly trusted site among the statisticians I known and work with, their team results tables don't include opposition goalscorers either. – Pee Jay 13:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't know as it is "subscribers only". Out of interest, why would you say that footballbox is so much more used on Wikipedia if it has so many more issues? --SuperJew (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Weird, I just tried to view it while I was logged out and it appeared just fine. As to your question, I would say it's possibly because the template happened to gain a bit of traction and then it was just too much effort to change to tables. Just a guess. – Pee Jay 13:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's geoblocked? Dunno. Tried again and still subscribers only. You do though bring up another point I didn't mention earlier --> the footballbox is much more intuitive and easier for editing. Using tables requires much more knowledge of wiki markup, and even then, non-hardcore users make mistakes which are hard to pick up on because they missed a | or a - somewhere. Or what's easier? using "result = W" or "style="background:#ddffdd"" (which I'm not even sure without triple checking if that corresponds to green or red)? If there is indeed wide consensus that tables are better (I'm not sure either is visually better or worse, just different imo), then some legwork should be done to make it easier to implement. --SuperJew (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There will be a way of making a template similar to Template:WDL or Template:Football squad player2 which would make it so much easier to move everything from football box to tables. I might have a look into it but it'll probably need someone who knows what they are doing haha. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Turning the table format into a template would be reasonably straight forward, I'll try to have a look at this week, as I also think that the standard match template had excessive information in it.Spike 'em (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've made a quick start at User:Stevie fae Scotland/Football result list. Feel free to add to it if you want. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it really that difficult to get to grips with wikicode? Wow, I'm astonished. Not everything has to be a template, guys. If you're worried about making mistakes in your code, just use the preview button! Even if you don't do that, someone will surely fix any errors. Excessive transclusion of templates is not something we should be encouraging. – Pee Jay 21:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ease of editing is something we should be encouraging. If one way is slightly better but less accessible, it's not surprising that the majority prefer to use the other way. I for example have been editing for quite a while, and yes, it is easier and less time consuming to update via footballbox than via a table. Don't set an editing bar on technical abilities and expect people to prefer the more time consuming way (even for someone experienced). Time is a valuable asset which people are donating here. --SuperJew (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly less accessible. Wikitables are among the simplest code on here. If we needed anything particularly complex, I might agree with you, but it's a simple table; the most complicated element about it is probably the hex code for the background colour, but even then it's not that big a deal. Anyway, you guys do you and I'll keep on with tables. – Pee Jay 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Stevie fae Scotland. Perhaps we should add an unsortable column for an in-line reference? And perhaps a note regarding the score (is it always home first? always the team first?)? And thirdly should have a setting (maybe with the score affecting it) for the background colour? --SuperJew (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my thinking was to use similar code to Module:Sports results to get the score column to come up green/yellow/red depending on the score. That would mean we'd need to keep the teamname score first so adding a note to that affect would be useful. I'm also thinking that the referee column may need to be optional as it would be pointless to have it in some articles like 1870s Kilmarnock F.C. seasons as not all the referees will be known. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how using wikitables can be that difficult, but if this helps ensuring that tables are used, then I'm all for it. I would suggest making the reference column optional as it is often easier to source the whole table in one if the season was pre-internet, such as with 1980–81 Partick Thistle F.C. season. Also, an option to turn off the sorting may be useful if a club gets knocked out of a cup in the first round. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorting shouldn't really be needed anyway. – Pee Jay 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Football Task Force

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that many top-flight teams in Switzerland don't have detailed season reports (even the top club right now --> Young Boys) has its 2020-21 season report out of date, not to mention some lower-table teams don't have any report page for the year. Is anyone interested in helping update Swiss football? Cheers Kwafsdnva (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kays Ruiz-Atil Youth Career

Latest comment: 3 years ago45 comments8 people in discussion

Hello. So basically, Kays Ruiz-Atil got sent back to train with the U19 squad of PSG after being with the senior team since the beginning of the season. Would this be enough to re-open the youth career? And potentially end the senior career (for now)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No. What if he re-joins the first team, and then moves back to youth etc., multiple times a season? A far too complex way of displaying it. Giant Snowman 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. If he's still eligible to play for the youth teams, leave the youth section open. If they overlap, they overlap, but at least it would be accurate. – Pee Jay 22:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm having Vietnam flashbacks to last year's RfC... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to leave both open. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

He signed a professional contract in 2018, I think you can close his youth career. Source: here.@Paul Vaurie:--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but after signing a pro contract a player is still available for youth team. And Ruiz just got sent back to the youth team. I know he has a pro contract. That's why I am leaving both open. He is a player for both right now. (IMO) Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I really don't understand why people claim that the start of a player's senior career automatically ends their youth career. – Pee Jay 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why people claim that (for example) players can be classed as 'youth' at aged 22 and after 5 years of senior football. Giant Snowman 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Bit of a straw man argument there. No 22-year-old is eligible for youth football. – Pee Jay 21:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Err actually players like Brad Lyons and Tom White signed for Blackburn and got stuck in the U23 (youth) team, having had years of first team experience prior to that... Giant Snowman 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Under-23s football isn't youth football. It may have an age restriction, but it's definitely not youth. – Pee Jay 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

How about players who didn't make their first team debut until after they played in the under-23s, like Nathaniel Phillips and Bryce Hosannah. They were clearly youth players, even though they were ineligible for the U18s. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Reserve team football is not youth football. As I said, they may have put an age limit on it now, but it's still not youth football. – Pee Jay 11:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Then where is the cut off? Giant Snowman 11:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Under-19s, surely? – Pee Jay 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that any player who leaves the U19s but doesn't make the first team (i.e. lots of Chelsea, Man Utd etc youngesters!) should be classed as 'first team' by us? Giant Snowman 11:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "leaves the U19s"? Once a player is no longer eligible for that team, they may not be first-teamers but they're certainly senior pros. The infobox doesn't talk about a player's first-team career, it talks about their senior career. – Pee Jay 11:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're suggesting every player who hits 20 should automatically be considered part of the first team? Giant Snowman 12:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I mean, you're right that no 20-year-old would be eligible for the under-19s, but I assume that's just a slip of the finger on your part. Players can continue to be eligible for the under-19s throughout the season when they turn 19, as long as they're under that age as of a certain date. But even then, I wouldn't say they're first-team players, I'd say they're senior players. Again, there's a difference. – Pee Jay 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For our infobox? No there isn't. 'Senior' has always been taken to mean 'first team' - because (as we are seeing here) how do you define inclusion otherwise? A bunch of 20/21 year olds nowhere near the first team but being classed as such by you in the infobox? Confusing and misleading for readers. Giant Snowman 12:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And yet their teams consider them senior players by having them train with the first team. Maybe I was wrong by specifying the under-19s as the cut-off, maybe it should be under-21s (if a club has an under-21 team, that is; most of them don't as youth football stops at under-19 level). Nevertheless, if a player isn't eligible for youth football any more, what else are they if not senior players? – Pee Jay 12:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Who said they are training with the first team? Is a 15 year old training with the first team also a 'senior' player by that rationale? They are 'reserve' players, as we discussed earlier...not every non-youth player is a first teamer! Your various rules and exceptions are far too confusing. The existing 'you are considered a first teamer once you play a first team match' is simpler and sensible. Giant Snowman 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, that’s not what I said. A player can (and should) be considered a senior player as soon as their involvement in senior football begins, but that doesn’t automatically mean their youth career is over. The situation is different for every player, so I’m sorry if that means you actually have to think about what you put in the infobox, but that’s just the way it is. Not everything can be compartmentalised and boxed off in the way you want it to be. Deal with it. – Pee Jay 12:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it can - and like I've said previously, it gets far too complicated trying to work out exactly when youth career ends and senior career begins under your rules, and having parallel careers is confusing and misleading. Giant Snowman 12:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You keep claiming we have to keep it simple, but you are doing it in such a way that is never actually explained to readers and ignores verifiable information. There is absolutely no reason that senior and youth careers have to exclude each other. Spike 'em (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s not misleading at all. In fact, it’s the truest representation of reality. It may be complicated in some cases, there’s no denying that, but for the majority, it isn’t. – Pee Jay 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, for some it seems that arbitrary rules trump clear, verifiable information. No rule is going to cover every single situation. Spike 'em (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we please close this argument for now? I'm intending of opening a second RfC in the semi-near future based on the no-consensus of the previous one. For the time being, I think the best thing to do is to close a blind eye. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why people claim that playing for an U19 team doesn't make you a youth player. Spike 'em (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why people claim that playing for an U19 team does make you a youth player, like that bloke at Leeds who was in his 20s/30s and sent to the youth team as punishment... Giant Snowman 11:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific? Did he get sent to the youth team or the reserves? Did he play competitive matches for them, or was he just training with them as punishment? Hell, I'd even settle for the guy's name if you don't know the details. – Pee Jay 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If I could remember his name I would have said, obviously. Giant Snowman 11:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Brown (amazing infobox photo, by the way :-)) was made to train with the youth team at Gillingham when he was about 27, but I don't think anyone would claim this "made him a youth team player". There's a world of difference between training with the youths and actually playing for them (which presumably at 27 he wasn't eligible to do anyway....?), and even if he had somehow played the odd game with the youths I don't think that would make him a "youth team player" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But why is it 'clearly' not the case for a 27 year old but not a 19/20/21/22 etc year old? Giant Snowman 12:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, that infobox photo is almost as bad as the one people keep trying to add to Brandon Williams (footballer)! – Pee Jay 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

At least we can see he has eyes! Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

At least for France (which is what I mostly edit) a player can play for the U19 team until they hit 19 (finishing that season they started before turning 19) and then either have to go to the first team or B team. So it's pretty clear for France. There usually isn't any case where a 23 y.o. plays youth football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I may be arguing the wrong thing here. For me, the youth career ends when the player becomes a player for the senior team (making an appearance). But in the case of Ruiz specifically, he was sent back to the youth team, therefore I re-opened it. For players like Romaric Yapi who get sent down to the U23s of a club they were not "formed" at, I am not too sure. I usually just leave them on the first team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In France, academy players sign youth/non-pro contracts. At some point, they sign professional contracts - I think this distinction is pretty important, Ruiz-Atil is now a pro or senior player, playing in the reserves. Not an academy players plating in the reserves, if that makes sense. So to me, he's not a youth player, even though he plays with the youth team.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important distinction. He is not a youth player who has had some senior time and is now back with the youth team, he is a young senior player who has seemingly been demoted to the youth team because of a (from reading between the lines) falling out with the manager. If (as people say above) a 30 year old who is sent back to the youth team as punishment should not be considered a youth player, why should a 19/20 year old? Giant Snowman 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Because if you tried telling someone that a 30-year-old footballers was a youth player, they'd laugh at you. Ruiz-Atil is still eligible to play in youth team games and may well do so over the coming days/weeks. Your hypothetical straw footballer would not have that luxury. – Pee Jay 15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. As soon as Ruiz-Atil is 20 he'll be automatically back as a senior player won't he! Giant Snowman 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You say "back as a senior player" like his senior career automatically stops. No, his senior career has started and can't be unstarted. However, his youth career can resume until the point that he is no longer eligible, which would be at the end of the season when he turns whatever age youth football stops in France. If you were anyone else, I would probably assume you were quite thick not to understand this, but we've both been on here long enough to know that's not the case, and I also know that pretending not to understand helps support your position; what I can't fathom, however, is why you hold this position in the first place. Seems like a weird hill to die on. – Pee Jay 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And what age does youth football officially stop in France, England, Belgium, Kazakhstan, Namibia etc. etc.? I hold this position because it is a sensible, simple and straightforward way of displaying infoboxes, whereas your preferred method relies on guesswork and assumptions and is confusing and misleading. Giant Snowman 16:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Brothers (?)

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Amad Diallo and Hamed Traorè being brothers has been questioned by the Italian authorities. Should we still describe them as "brothers" in their respective articles, or amend it in some other way? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Has it been established that they are definitely not brothers? If so do not describe them as such. Giant Snowman 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't. It's been established that their supposed father isn't their father. The fact that they are brothers is still unsure. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest that they are described as "alleged brothers" or similar? Giant Snowman 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Club categories for Spain

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(sorry if this has come up before, probably has but couldn't find in a quick archive check) My understanding for club cats in player articles is that being under contract to that club at any point, including as a child, should lead to that cat being added. However that doesn't seem to be the case in Spain. For example yesterday I added Category:Athletic Bilbao footballers to about 40 players who had played for Athletic at youth level then for Basconia and/or Bilbao Athletic (the official B / reserve team) but not for the first team. Basconia is a tricky case because until 1997 they were a separate, independent club; since then they have been Athletic's farm team: the club has its own board, youth system etc at local level but the first team coaching staff and players are Athletic Bilbao employees. So the vast majority of Basconia players on Wikipedia are Athletic players, but not all: prior to 1997 José Ángel Iribar played for both, but earlier Simón Lecue and Enrique Larrinaga did not, so it's inaccurate to include the club cat as a child of Athletic Bilbao footballers and as such I've added the cat to all relevant players - including a few I'm not 100% on: Unai Elgezabal only featured for Basconia while signed to Athletic, and Daniel Vivian (footballer) never played for the youth teams: he has played for Basconia, Bilbao Athletic and is now loaned out after signing a first team contract. But to me those are both correct as Basconia ≠ Athletic in all cases. The second part is maybe more straightforward and applies to many more players: the clubs' reserve teams. An example of this is Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta who only played for Barcelona B and only has that cat, so I presume it's been agreed that this is correct as the reserve cat is a child of the parent club cat which of course was actually his employer. However, Urko Pardo played for Barcelona youth, C team and B team and only has the B and C cats, is this correct? He didn't play for the first team but did represent the club in other teams aside from the Bs and Cs - in other countries the youth spell would merit the parent cat, but most other countries don't have reserve teams in the senior system. There will be specific unusual situations at each club of course, but just trying to establish the general rule for these things. Apologies for rambling on once again, can't seem to summarise my queries very effectively. Crowsus (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason why players should not be added into the categories for clubs they played for at youth level in Spain, just as they are for every other country... Giant Snowman 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

would like to point out that I have created Wikipedia pages on Matteo Anzolin and Matías Soulé. They are in draft form as they have never made their debut in professional football. Please move the pages to the mainspace when they make their professional football debut. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pau FC squad template missing

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. Pau FC of the Ligue 2 is lacking a squad template. I think all other Ligue 2 sides have one. Could someone familiar with the process add it? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On it... Gricehead (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done {{Pau FC squad}}. Note I've not added #33 as this isn't a fixed squad number in French professional leagues. Gricehead (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you. I'll start adding it to the players' articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Director of football in club infoboxes

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How about it? It seems a crucial role.--Echetus Xe 15:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Overkill imho. Where do we draw the line? Chairman and manager is fine. Giant Snowman 15:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Italian Regional Cups are notable?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

In Italy there are regional cups that take place between 7th tier teams. There are sources needed to verify that the information is true, but I would like to know if it is notable and if pages about these competitions could be created on Wikipedia. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think these get any coverage over the regional levels. -Koppapa (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koppapa:Reliable sources are present. Trust me. The source from which I get information is Tuttocampo. Are-this articles suitable for Wikipedia? Dr Salvus (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What are there, like 105 different cups? Of cause there are good sources for even for the lowest of cups. But those have no eneclopedic relevance in my opinion. -Koppapa (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koppapa: You may be right, but there are minor articles in the encyclopedia Dr Salvus (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ;-) Robby.is.on (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

As main contributor to the article List of footballers killed during World War II, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

Willi Arlt (Germany) - allegedly died in Soviet captivity after capture in war in 1947, but the reference in the article is vague about the details
Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
Walter Berg (Germany) - alleged died in Soviet captivity after capture in war in 1949
Josef Bergmaier (Germany) - this ref confirms he died in Oryol in March 1943, but I haven't found anything for the exact date yet
Henri Bierna (Belgium)
Walter Claus-Oehler (Germany)
Eddy de Neve (Netherlands) - also disputed death circumstance and identity
Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
Hermann Flick (Germany)
Jur Haak (Netherlands) - citation located {Olympedia} byCloptonson (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Johannes Jakobs (Germany) - citation (VDK) located by Cloptonson (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Franz Jelinek (Austria)
Werner Klaas (Germany)
Georg Köhl (Germany)
Karol Kossok (Poland)
Franz Krumm (Germany) - this ref confirms he died in Oryol in March 1943, but I haven't found anything for the exact date yet
Harry Kuneman (Netherlands)
Hans Lang (Germany) - citation located by Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
Richard Malik (Germany)
Alexander Martinek (Austria)
Otto Martwig (Germany)
Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
Hans Mengel (Germany)
Adam Obrubanski (Poland)
Slavko Pavletic (Croatia)
Mimis Pierrakos (Greece)
Alfreds Plade (Latvia)
Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
Stasys Razma (Lithuania) - disputed death details
Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
Holger Salin (Finland)
Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here anyway as I may be missing something.
Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
Erwin Stührk (Germany)
Piet Tekelenburg (Netherlands)
István Tóth (Hungary)
Lothar van Gogh (Netherlands)
Willi Völker (Germany)
Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
Heinz Warnken (Germany)
Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death is disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into pages. Cloptonson (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that most of these are from non-English speaking countries, it may be worth asking on a foreign Wiki. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reissued this appeal on wikipedia's Local Embassy talk page to draw the attention of other languages.Cloptonson (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: - this would back up that Franz Krumm was killed in the war though doesn't mention specific details, and also suggests Josef Bergmaier died during the war, who I notice isn't listed. this article also mentions those two, giving a month and location for their deaths. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Even better, I just found this on German Wikipedia. I've added anyone not on the main article onto the list above. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting table, will take closer look although citations are not given. As to Otto Siffling, while his death took place chronologically within the war I see no indication he was in military service.Cloptonson (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

International women's football sources

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Much to my surprise there is no women's equivalent of List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, so I have started a Draft:List of top international women's football goal scorers by country to kick things off. What are good sources? Surprisingly often it is hard to find out who a country's top scorer is. RSSSF does not seem to maintain such a list. Nor does it seem to have player stats for women. (As an aside, feel free to help out with the currently mostly empty list.) Edwininlondon (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Good onya! I started out by updating my home country's topscorer. Will try and have a look at some more if I have the time. --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the consensus about the source soccerdonna.de? Its coverage is good. It seems to have accurate stats in the few tests I have taken. For example, Miedema's goal tally of 70 is well documented in reliable sources, and soccerdonna has it correct. But I'm not sure if the stats are coming from an editorial team or users. There is an option for users to contribute but I'm unsure if that means the stats are user-generated or whether users can only make suggestions for the editorial team to correct wrong numbers. I have used it 6 times now in the Draft:List of top international women's football goal scorers by country, but I'm starting to wonder if it is actually a reliable source. Views? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It the women's version of Transfermarkt – so I would assume it works like Transfermarkt? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not considered reliable... Giant Snowman 12:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have removed all references. Unfortunately I have not been able to find many reliable sources. Even int.women.soccerway is not useful: Miedema for example is listed there as having scored 85 goals including 27 in the youth teams. So at the sr level, they account for only 58 goals of the 70. Picking the year 2015 as an example, it gives 0 goals from 4 caps for her that year, whereas the Dutch Football Association has 2 goals from 12 caps in 2015, including friendlies and the 2015 Cyprus Cup. More obvious is their incompleteness with Julie Fleeting, Scotland's alltime goal scorer on 116 goals from 121 caps. Soccerway only has 6 goals. A few checks on male players (Robin van Persie, Pogba, Birkir Bjarnason) seems to suggest the men's data is fine on soccerway. So far the national football association of a country seems a reliable source, but too often they do not have player profile pages on their website. So the hunt for reliable sources continues ... Edwininlondon (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway is extremely incomplete for women's football (and is relatively incomplete for men's international football). Unfortunately, there is no women's equivalent of national-football-teams.com. As you say, the most reliable source seem to be the national associations. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Well I don't know about other countries sources for women's but the New Zealand, one is brilliant as the guy who does it all takes pride in the women's game so definitely use The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website which is on WP:FOOTY list of reliable sources for New Zealand. Otherwise the Women's Football task list has their sources as well.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 07:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Club merging and name changing

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

When a club changes name, I assume we just keep it kind of the same in the infobox, we just change the club name for a player that played at that club when it changed name. But for when a club merges with another one to create a new club, would we end a player's career for the old club and start it for a new one? Like for example, Tim Template plays for Racing Template - in 2034, Racing Template merges with Sample FC to form Racing Sample... would we have two seperate clubs saying "Racing Template" and "Racing Sample" or would we have one club named "Racing Sample"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we typically just put the new team name, but I wouldn't be opposed to making it Racing Template/Racing Sample in some instances. For example, Ballou Tabla played for Montreal Impact in his youth, then as his first club, then he returned on loan, before being bought permanently again in 2020. In 2021, the team became CF Montreal. I feel like the slash would be beneficial to show that it's the same club that he was on loan with, but I think the practice is to put the new name only, so I've left it like that. Maybe we can add a reference note to say "the club was known as Team XYZ until 2020" RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We put the newest name, and a note explaining the name change or merger (for example see Vartan Ghazarian). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Is there not a difference between a name change and a merger? Because for example in Bernard Guignedoux, Stade Saint-Germain and Paris Saint-Germain are not really the same clubs. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No idea about mergers unfortunately, as I barely know of any in Lebanon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If a club changes name then it is the same club and only has one entry in the infobox. If clubs merge and a player stays with the new entity (for example a SSG player staying with PSG) then you have two entries in the infobox as they are separate clubs. Giant Snowman 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that apply to Categories as well? Merging clubs being being separate from the merged club? So a player who played for SSG would go into Category:SSG but not Category:PSG unless they played for PSG as well, even though PSG 'absorbed' the the club. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - a player who played for SSG but not PSG would only be in the SSG category. If they played with both, then both categories. Giant Snowman 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I bring it up because that's not what you said when we had the discussion a couple of weeks ago about Category:Alliance United FC players], where you included the players who played for the forming clubs (WSC and MFC) into the category for the new club and I felt they shouldn't be included since they never actually played for AU. While it's not close to the same prestige level as SSG and PFC merging to form a separate PSG, I fail to see how two small clubs together forming a separate third club is different. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems inconsistent RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, that situation is different because there is no WSC/MFC articles, only Alliance. Giant Snowman 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how it's different. MFC and WSC are not AUFC and in fact MFC and WSC still exist separately from AUFC, they're like the CD Basconia to Athletic Bilbao. Many youth clubs don't have articles and we just don't have categories for them. The no article exists for MFC argument, so I'm going to include them with another (related but different) club's category just does not make sense, given its inconsistent with the above. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is more clear. Would we still put a note as we did for a name change? --Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How about in career stats tables, such as with Dariusz Wosz? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that how I would display it. Giant Snowman 21:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ta. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should there maybe be a note for both team names? Someone who is unaware that they are the same club just renamed might not understand why two stats from what would appear to be different clubs are combined. I do agree that it should show total combined stats unlike how it was before RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, would be sensible. Giant Snowman 21:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

For Bernard Guignedoux, would we put a note explaining how SSG turned into PSG? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In the prose, yes - not needed in the infobox. Giant Snowman 10:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 Ulsan Hyundai FC season

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There is definitely something weird going on with this article. Aside from the frankly disgusting use of {{football kit}} in a {{football box collapsible}}, i feel there is some sockpuppety activity on this article but am not familliar with WP:SPI. This page has been on my watchlist since circa. April 2020 when we were forced to watch Korean football because of an absence of any other entertainment. The original creator of the page was blocked indefinitely for vandalism, with the original editor having the distintive traits of reverting basically any change to the article and occasionally swearing in edit summaries. Multiple other users have edited this page since and have demonstrated similar behaviour, with another one of these editors having been blocked indefinitely. I don't know whether I was right to raise this here but I felt posting here was better than ignoring it, and I would appreciate it if a couple folk had a look at this page. Also, if someone could help with WP:SPI, that would be appreciated. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, the 3 most frequent recent editors of the page have been blocked, 2 of them for block evasion by Euro2024, the other for edit warring. I can't tell if the 3rd editor is a sock too, but not sure that opening an SPI case will be of any use. There seems to be a fair amount of ip editing, but the random selection I looked at seemed constructive. If any other seeming socks spring up then would be worth raising SPI then. Spike 'em (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure why the assistant to the assistant video assistant referee would need to be included in a club article. Hack (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've even gone the extra step of removing all the assistant referees and just leaving the man with the whistle. – Pee Jay 13:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

user:Hazelhouse1988

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This user made 6 edits yesterday to remove the Blyth statistics from Lee Clark (footballer). I think that the time has come to institute a block. As he’s only ever made edits on or about Clark, I think the ban should be permanent. He’s clearly on a mission to improve Clark’s CV. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is it such a big deal for you Hazelhouse1988 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the death throes of the person who knows they're in the wrong! If we have a source for Clark's performance as Blyth manager, we should include those stats in his article. I had a look at the edit history, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that we don't include non-league stats. Usually it's because they're not available so we can't source them, but in this case we can, so we include them. – Pee Jay 13:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked the editor indefinitely from that article, as that is simple disruption after multiple warnings. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Niall Huggins international stats

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Any idea where you may be able to find complete youth international stats? Niall Huggins made an appearance for Wales U21, but I can't find anywhere that lists complete youth international stats. Leeds543 is insistent on including them, and has listed all the international matches for Wales within that period, with Huggins having appeared in one of them, though I think this borders on WP:SYNTH as well as looking really messy. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The only location where you can find a complete overview of a player's youth NT stats (including friendlies) is the federation's website. Otherwise, Soccerway and Global Sports Archive have "official" games (WC, Euros, etc.). I don't see why we would need to include refs for ALL of Wales' recent games, if he only appeared in one of them. Only include the source for his one game. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Welsh FA's website doesn't have any kind of player profiles for U21 players. I would prefer to leave out the stats from the infobox if there is no single ref that sources the stats, because it is either messy or not properly sourced. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rothman's yearbook used to have a full list of U21 caps for the home nations, but I haven't bought a Rothman's/Sky Sports yearbook in a while. I'll check SoccerAssociation. – Pee Jay 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

According to SoccerAssociation, Huggins has made one appearance for Wales U21 - in June 2019 in a 2-1 friendly loss to Albania. He came on at half-time and played the entire second half. – Pee Jay 00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fs start - template update question

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Has this change been discussed? The added statement will likely be misleading in many cases, such as for players who may have been born in one place but moved to another place in childhood, or even later, and legally changed their passport/nationality. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec with the second sentence above) I don't know, but it makes sense. The majority of players, particularly in leagues below the top one in their country, have never played international football, so the only valid determinant of their nationality is their place of birth..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

But that is already stated, by the FIFA eligibility rules. -Koppapa (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a valid point....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the move and invite @Wbm1058: to persuade us otherwise... Giant Snowman 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on merging {{Football squad player}} and {{Football squad player2}}, per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Other and the consensus of discussions at Template talk:Football squad player.

The text came from {{Football squad player2}}. I've removed it from that template as well, to sync their notes text. (DIFF).

So the merge of the notes has now been completed by replacing the text on {{Football squad player2}} with the text on {{Football squad player}} (DIFF). – wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Italy national under-15 football team

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, I put a PROD on this page with the rationale Per reasons given at this related discussion; no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and below the level that would normally receive significant media coverage. I don't see how this is notable. Playing in a bunch of youth camps and Christmas tournaments and being a feeder to the under-16 team is not notable. and it got contested by an IP but, unfortunately, no reason provided. I can't seem to find any actual independent coverage for this team and the article itself seems to suggest that it's barely even a separate entity from the under-16 team. Weirdly, I've noticed that England national under-15 football team redirects to the under-16 team but France national under-15 football team and Germany national under-15 football team all redirect to a more general youth team article.

Has there ever been any consensus over what is best to do with these under-15 teams? I've noticed that Portugal under-15s were almost unanimously deemed notable but maybe they are an exception? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS and "List of international goals by x"

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

An AfD might be of interest to your project, specially as it seems to concern a rather frequent type of page, of which all might/should be deleted/redirected... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The user who created this fork does not have English as their first language. I've tried to help them a number of times on their talk page, but they seem desperate to achieve milestones, and there recent efforts in my opinion are becoming low level disruptive editing at best. It's was suggested to me by an admin (I forget who) that CIR could be applied to users who do not have enough understanding of English to be able to contribute in line with en.wiki's rules and guidelines, but reading previous such debates at the noticeboards I'm not convinced the community agrees. Gricehead (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gricehead: User competency or not, WP:NOTSTATS is surely not something unique to English Wikipedia. The real in-between-the-lines question I was asking was "should these tables be included at all"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: See that 1) you speak Italian and 2) have commented to this user before (I'd try French myself, but given they say they're not more fluent in it than English, rather not waste my efforts). Can you help? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: What is happening is that he has taken me as a sort of "mentor", if that makes sense. He's taken inspiration from my userpage for his own, and asks me for help for various issues. All of which is completely fine (and good, if anything). What I find a bit perplexing is his "need" to "catch up" to my numbers (editing, pages created, and now, promoted pages). Here he has asked me how I have "managed" to get to 4.5k edits per month, and what my "secret" is (as if the number of edits was some sort of achievement). I think he has also applied for various editing roles, like rollbacker and the sort.

At the end, I don't really know what I should tell him. I've told him a couple of times to take it easy, but maybe I haven't been explicit enough. He's a good editor in the end, but maybe he should concentrate more on quality over quantity, and not view Wikipedia as a sort of "videogame". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG immediately comes to mind (the other humourous pages linked in the navbox at the bottom seem also relevant) - <semi-serious humour>Pro tip: Anti vandalism = lots of edits quickly if you're doing it at the right time of day</semi-serious humour>... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that the user has also created List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain and, not long after, submitted at WP:GAN, see here. They also submitted the Ramos article at WP:FLC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen an article at FLC and AfD simultaneously. – Pee Jay 10:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor needs speaking to. Creating questionable articles then immediately submitting them to GAN/FLC is...baffling any best. Giant Snowman 11:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

American footy seasons

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So whats happening with the MLS and US soccer leagues? Are they all suspended at the moment?? Is there a big delay till April? Govvy (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The MLS preseason is due to start on March 8 (https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2021/02/13/mls-sets-2021-preseason-start-dates) – Pee Jay 13:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

They just got delayed by about a month, while the league negotiated with the players union. The season usually starts in March, it's just starting in April instead, so not a big delay since we play on the alternated calendar anyways (March-December instead of August-May like in Europe) RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

k, cheers guys. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Test matches between England and Dominions

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

The Football Association used to tour the dominions often playing test matches against their national teams. These would be advertised as versus England. Whilst not being official England matches, although every player on the tour was awarded a cap*, what was/is their status as considered by Australia, New Zealand, etc?

*Should these be included in England appearances?

achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Achangeisasgoodasa: Take a look here and here, for example. Are these matches included? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

See also British FA XI Tours @ RSSSF, which says "None of these matches are recognized to be full internationals by any of the four British associations. A few matches are considered to be full internationals by the host countries." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Was hoping for something more specific than "A few matches are considered to be full internationals by the host countries." achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as Scotland goes, Australia considers their 1967 match as official and on the OzFootball site it explains this, hopefully it would do likewise for uncertain England ones, not checked. RSSSF for New Zealand seems to have the full NZ v Eng internationals in parentheses and others via XIs and Bs so that seems clear to me. You'd probably have to check the match list for each country. Crowsus (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That Australia–Scotland match is listed as a B international.Hack (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to record the 'England XI' matches somewhere, either as a note on the tour or individual matches, a good place could be England national football team results (unofficial matches). They wouldn't be counted as full caps; for the equivalent tours by Scotland, a few of the players have them listed separately in the infobox: see Alex Ferguson and Patsy Gallacher. I would not normally add it like that to articles as sometimes it's difficult to be sure of the totals and some of them were against clubs etc, although (for Scotland at least, not sure if it would be the same for England) it was fairly prestigious to be involved in these tours, though not the full team; I'd consider it similar to a B Cap, but officially it's not that either. So I do mention it in the prose for the participants. And I see some of those England v NZ matches did officially involve England B so you could mention it there, although it doesn't have a full list of matches. Crowsus (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already made numerous additions to England national football team results (unofficial matches). Might make Football Association XI an article. achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah OK sorry. Was thinking of doing the same with SFA Tours or similar. Crowsus (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. See you haven't added match(es) against Scottish Alliance to Scottish Football League XI yet achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ooh I will, where are those stored pleeze? Crowsus (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Crampsey gives a match against the Alliance in 1892 on page 246. That's my total knowledge achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, don't have that book. But I'll give it a go to find out more. Crowsus (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

From our past dealings thought you had. Doesn't give any more information achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

[11] achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: achangeisasgoodasa (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Change to MOS for Career Statistics (for USA/Canada league players)

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

A few months ago, a change was proposed and agreed to, to allow the creation of a "State League" section in the career stats table of Player pages for Brazilian players who played in the Brazilian league system, given State Leagues are such an important part of the league system there. On a similar note, I want to propose a change for North American league players (MLS/CPL/USL) where an extremely important part of the league system are the League Playoffs. Given it's such an important part of the competition, I feel it merits inclusion for relevant players in the Career Stats table. The champion of the league is not the league leader at the end of the season, rather it's the Playoff champion. Sticking it in "Other" dismisses it as being less important, when in reality in NA Playoffs are the most important, and are actually more important than league appearances. NA playoffs aren't like a secondary thought European relegation playoffs, they are the primary concern. We get a star on our jersey when we win the Playoffs, winning the league is a secondary consideration. If LEAGUE CUP (whose primary importance is in England, and some other nations have their own variation) is allowed a unique section in the MOS instead of being stuck in Other, then PLAYOFFS would merit it as well for NA leagues, just like State League for Brazil. Players who primarily play in Europe obviously wouldn't need this category (promotion playoffs could get put in Other), but NA players should be allowed this section and in fact many NA league players already have this section in their articles. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NOTE I'm NOT proposing including it to the Infobox, just a separate column in the Career Stats table for relevant players (ie. North American league players). RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason why the 'Other' column should not be renamed as 'Playoffs' for these players if they have multiple seasons of playoff games - but it should remain in its place at the end of the row and should NOT be moved in between 'League' and 'National Cup' stats. Giant Snowman 16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Given Playoffs are more important than Domestic cup, for NA players I believe it should. State League goes second for Brazilian players because it's important and part of the League System. For NA players, Playoffs ARE part of the League Structure and go hand in hand with League. It's not some "other" competition, it's directly related to the League stats. For most players, this won't impact their tables, but for NA players, it merits it due to the connection. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Whilst stats tables are useful, please don't forget that WP:NOTSTATS applies. Under your proposal, for players who have spent some time in Brazil and North America we would have 2 extra columns, the vast majority of which would be marked with '–' as not applicable... Giant Snowman 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, what about players who have competed in non-North American playoffs - would you list those stats in the 'Playoffs' column or keep them in 'Other' where they normally live? Giant Snowman 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no different than a player who spent a couple years in England have stats in one or two rows for League Cup and then '–' everywhere else. Would you be okay with putting league cup stats for those players in Other? For your second post, that could come from further discussion here. Relegation playoffs could go in other because they're not true playoffs for a championship, but Playoffs like in the Belgian First Division A would probably go in a playoff column as well RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The League Cup column is there because multiple countries have such a competition, and is removed for players who play in countries that don't - same with 'Continental'. Your suggestion to split up the playoffs into two columns is simply going to cause confusion for readers and errors by editors. Keep it all in one 'Other' column IMHO. Giant Snowman 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Players who don't have Playoffs, will not have a Playoffs column. Players who do not have League Cup will not have League Cup. You ignored my point though. You said we shouldn't have playoffs because for some players it might only be in a couple of rows. The same applies to League Cup, some players only have it in a couple rows. Either way, maybe the location of the Playoff column could be debated separately, but this was first and foremost about allowing the creation of a Playoff column (not location). Simply renaming the Other column to playoffs which you said earlier (which is not what you said on my talk page, where you said it has to be Other) is not good enough imo, because some players will have valid other columns in addition to playoffs. Instead, of getting into a further back and forth, I'm going to wait for other input from other editors after this post, since obviously we have opposing views RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually you'll note I've changed my mind in renaming after some more of your posts concerned me, and so think it should simply be contained in the 'Other' column. Indeed, the 'Other' is to cover...anything else that is not League or Cup (or Continental where applicable). We do not separate out every competition, doing so would be ridiculous. Containing weird cup games and playoffs in there has worked or years and I see no reason to change it. Giant Snowman 16:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the example of the Belgian First Division A, it seems they have play-offs for the title and play-offs for Europa League place. Using the above methodology would (if I have read it correctly) require editors to put the former in the play-off column but the latter in the other column, even though both are playoffs. That seems unnecessarily confusing/complex to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Support: Definitely in this case. It makes sense. The MLS Cup Playoffs are generally considered a different competition from the regular season and that matches up with other sports in the US such as the NFL and NBA. Player articles for those leagues generally separate the regular season and playoffs. I don't mind the "—" as that can also be very prevalent with those who did play in a League Cup but now don't have it, or who had one season in an international club competition but now don't play anything besides league and cup. I would also support it next to "League" and before "Cup" since that makes sense, at least for MLS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Representing a rebranded club in a player infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Where a club rebrands, but otherwise remains the same entity (as with AS Lyon-Duchère becoming Sporting Club Lyon in June 2020), how is this best represented in the infobox for a player who was at the club in one spell before and after the rebrand (such as Maxime Hautbois)?

Old name, since they signed when the club was that name - doesn't seem right
New name, since they last played for the club under that name - also doesn't seem right
Old name, with a footnote explaining the rename?
New name, with a footnote explaining the rename?
Some sort of piping, such as Lyon-Duchère/SC Lyon, possibly with a footnote?

Thoughts? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Either 4 or 5 for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4 seems best. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4 or 5. I have tended to use 5 in these situations, but 4 is equally sensible. Giant Snowman 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4, because 5 could cause confusion with clubs such as FK Bodø/Glimt. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4, and that is the main style I've seen used (for example Massimo Murdocca who was at both Queensland Roar which became Brisbane Roar and at Melbourne Heart which became Melbourne City). --SuperJew (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, that seems conclusive. Gricehead (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

4 seems fine although I feel like 5 could be appropriate in certain instances. For example, a player returning to a former club, which would be listed under two different names in the info box RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's anachronistic to say that player A played for club "X/Y" between 2017 and 2019, if the club has been known as "Y" since 2015. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant in a case where player played for the club for example from 2014-2016 then returned from 2018-present, but the team changed name in 2020 and meant it as 2014-2016 Old Name, 2019-present Old Name/New name. I didn't mean put old/new for all stints including when the entire spell was known by one, just the section with the name change. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would still rather put a note, and not a slash. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

so, we need to add the footnote to CF Montréal players?Pincheira22 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pincheira22: If they played before and after January 2021, then yes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

C.D. Fas squad template

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Someone familiar with Salvadoran football might like to take a look at {{C.D. FAS squad}} which seems to be at least five years out of date. Hack (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably seven or eight years out of date, heh. El Salvador football – too obscure for me. But I've added the maintenance template which should help anybody interested in updating it. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated per source. No need to be familiar with it too much. If someone is more familiar and knows there is something not updated in the source (and cares enough which I doubt with it so out of date), they can update further. --SuperJew (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GOAL FC

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. Since we know what to do for when a club merges & changes its name in the infobox, this creates a dilemma. GOAL FC merged with many smaller clubs in 2020 (its previous name was Monts d'Or Azergues Foot). The question is whether I would treat this as a name change or an entire new club (like SSG vs PSG), because I think they just kept the same first team and didn't pick specific players from the different clubs. You know what I mean? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they are more or less a continuation of Monts d'Or Azergues Foot, so I'd keep it as a 1 club. I'm not too pressed though, and can be convinved otherwise if someone has evidence.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was an absorption of (much) smaller clubs, and a rebranding exercise, rather than a merger. Nothing of the smaller clubs exists, all the same infrastructure, management (on and off pitch) of the old MDA Foot still exists. It's not the first time this club has done this, either. Just my 2c as the editor who did the move originally. Gricehead (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree - treat this as a rename of the old club rather than a traditional merge. Giant Snowman 10:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that it's a continuation of the same main team (renamed). I have also redirected Tassin FC, Champagne Sport FC and Futsal Saône Monts d'Or to GOAL FC, as they don't seem independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

New help fixing Season Table Reference

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

2017–18 GFF Elite League is driving me crazy! The reference is there at the bottom (and the figures are all on Soccerway too) but the table still has that blasted "citation needed" flag and I can't find where to point it to. I looked through the template and skimmed it in source-mode, but I am stumped! Anyone good with these kind of tables have a minute to figure this out? Cheers! Estheim (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Module for standings needs own source as parameter. It does not know of cources in the article. Also the relegations currently don't match the source. -Koppapa (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a really annoying citation error. Estheim (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FFF female

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I remember someone tried to fix FFF male profiles since they have been removed. The thing is, this wasn't done for FFF female profiles. If someone could figure out what to do, that'd be great. This is just a heads-up so it doesn't go unnoticed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. How can I update the FIFA World Rankings table showed in this page? According to the schedule reported below in the page, the table should be updated as per 18 February 2021.--Island92 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's updated at Module:SportsRankings/data/FIFA World Rankings, now

Done. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fail NFOOTY red links

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. Should we create red links for players that fail WP:NFOOTY? What I mean is I am editing 1970–71 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season: there are several players who have recently had articles deleted because they did not meet notability. Should I leave their names in red link or plain text? And if they have articles on other wikipedias should I standard link or interlanguage link? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, no to the first, yes to the second as interlanguage link - I think this creates a redlink anyway? Crowsus (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It does. So maybe if it's no for the red links we should standard link to other language wikis? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I would still link via ill. If you link directly using [[:fr, people will see the blue link and will reasonably expect to remain within en.wiki. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If the player is potentially notable (NFOOTBALL or GNG) then add redlinks. If not then do not - it merely encourages well meaning editors to create non-notable articles. Giant Snowman 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Does that mean everytime we add a red link we must check the notability of someone? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that necessary. I haven't seen many articles being created for the players from the past unless they appeared in top level national team tournaments. On the other hand, a many incoming redlinks may be a clue that he is in fact notable. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Source for stadiums?

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

At 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group H, MPN 1994 keeps reinserting the same material regarding a supposed claim that Malta will host all their qualifying matches at National Stadium, Ta' Qali. While their home match in March is already verified via UEFA, I cannot find a source that supports the claims for the other home matches, and none of Malta's home matches on FIFA nor UEFA's sites show this stadium as the home match for those dates. Is there anyone that can locate where this is confirmed? Jalen Folf (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a dummy with pings. Correct ping to MPN 1994, as I have fixed above. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Does Malta even have another stadium which has the criteria to host a FIFA World Cup qualification match? --SuperJew (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the GFA National Training Center and MFF Football Centre have also held WCQ games, so you never know. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And let's not forget the San Marino Stadium. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the additions again, linking back to this discussion. MPN 1994, if you are reading this, what are your sources for the stadium claims recently removed? Jalen Folf (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User sent to ANI here. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wp:overlink in UEFA articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago39 comments12 people in discussion

@Chanheigeorge, Crowsus, Island92, Kante4, Nmk829, and S.A. Julio: (and others) Why don't we link the teams just once in each 'Matches' section? I understand when we link everything back in 2013-14 season and earlier, because we list the matches in '1st leg' & '2nd leg' order, so that repeated team links are not close to each other. Since 2014-15, when we switch to pair listing, this wp:overlink case becomes egregious. See 2013–14 UEFA Champions League knockout phase and 2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to. It's overkill to have Bayern Munich linked 50 times in the one article. There can be some merit in having it linked more than once, for example in the qualifying stage and the knock out stage or in the team of the tournament section but anything more than that is too much. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't have an interest either way to be honest. Per the rules of Overlink it does look like too much, but sometimes it's easier just to keep them in articles like this where there's so many different teams and entries, and finding the first instance to click on the link to the club articles may be problematic or annoying for the reader. That's my only thoughts on it and I don't wish to become involved in any dispute on the issue, whatever is decided those who do care will be fine by me. Crowsus (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I echo Crowsus's comment. I does seem like a breach of OVERLINK but it can be helpful for casual readers. Before I created an account and got in to all of this, articles like the ones being discussed were the main ones I looked at and it was helpful to be able to click on the relevant team on the spot and not have to scroll up or down. That's my thoughts and I don't really think this is a big enough issue to have a massive dispute over. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

OL only applies to prose, so if we are talking about tables or brackets, there's no need to not link these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: The lists in 'Matches' sections are mainly in prose, I think. My proposal is not about tables and brackets. @Crowsus and REDMAN 2019: We use pair listing since 2014-15, so the repeated team names are very close to each other. Linking name in the 1st leg and not linking in the 2nd seems sufficient, in most cases we do not need to scroll if we look for the link. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it probably should include brackets. You have all 16 teams (or 32 in EL) lined up on the left hand side with a line pointing you back to it. The bracket is almost designed to only need one link for each. I personally disagree with the use of a bracket in the CL/EL articles because it has little relevance to the tournament which uses a seeded draw followed by a succession of random draws rather than international tournaments like the World Cup or in tennis tournament where the bracket actually decides who plays who in each subsequent round but that's a discussion for another day. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to then I would agree to only linking teams in the first leg for matches, and only in the Round of 16 or 32 for the brackets. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using a bracket. Although the path each team takes isn't predetermined, the bracket serves as a simple after-the-fact graphical overview of the match-ups that did take place. – Pee Jay 13:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These brackets aren't included in OL. You will see some projects link just the opening round, and others will link all of them. I feel there are many more issues with these articles rather than the brackets being linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Linking once in brackets would be a little bit annoying to some smartphone users, because they might need to scroll horizontally to find team links. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus not reached in this discussion by linking once the team in "Matches" section. Why are you @Centaur271188: continuing to do it in 2020–21 UEFA Europa League knockout phase?--Island92 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: I see no objection here, at least about 'Matches' section (except yours). Centaur271188 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As I told you in your talk page this is huge change, and before accepting it or no you need to get a consensus here as I suggested doing. It isn't except me, but even @Ayomaju:, who reverted once this your personal change. If @Chanheigeorge: and @S.A. Julio: gave an opinion about this huge change, it would be more appreciable.--Island92 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you finish being a stubborn user, deciding to change things on your own? I do not see any consensus here for applying your edits!--Island92 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: No, I will not. You are protesting a change which not only follows wp:overlink, but also makes our work easier (unless you think typing '[[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]' is more convenient than just 'Benfica'). Centaur271188 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally pretty forgiving about having something linked multiple times in different forms/tables throughout an article (e.g., once in a list of teams competing, then in a bracket, then again in a stats table of some kind) especially when a user may come to the article just to jump to that specific section. But removing the links from the second leg of a match listing with both legs (a la here) seems about as obvious and non-controversial as wp:overlink can get. I fully support that edit even if we make no other changes in accordance with WP:OL Alyo (chat·edits) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: It is not a protest, as you may think. Your proposal about your change in these pages has not been accepted yet in this talk. You're still insisting on publishing this your own change without reaching a consensus before. It's against Wikipedia and its rules, not whether I want to type S.L. Benfica or just Benfica once or twice, a particular thing that has been used for years (see your talk indeed, pages linked).--Island92 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To me, it looks like most people are amenable to reducing the number of links on these pages and that you are the only one that isn't. So much so, you seem to refuse to understand any of the comments above. This is one of the things that I dislike about Wikipedia but unfortunately it is part and parcel of the site. Issues like this aren't all that important and shouldn't result in such strong feelings either way but too often they do. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Before this huge change, he needs getting a consensus. Have a look here. A new edit war has just started working between IPs and Centaur271188 about linking twice or not the teams into the "Matches" section.--Island92 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

While I can see why it may be overkill to link the team names twice, I still think it is nice to have access to the linked articles from more points. Plus all the past articles with two-legged matches generally use this format, so just for consistency sake I don't feel a change in format is that necessary. Mediocre Legacy (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mediocre Legacy: More access points is good, but it is not that good when those points are too close to each other. About consistency, I am dealing with it now, all seasons from 2014-15 - knockout phase and qualifying phase - will be changed soon. @Island92: Please stop reverting me and let me finish this change. The consensus has been reached here. You are being increasingly unreasonable. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the consensus reached specifically in this talk? In which sentence can I read it?--Island92 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm fine with whatever the final decision is, I was just speaking about other competition articles having that format already as well, not just Champions/Europa League. Mediocre Legacy (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mediocre Legacy: I am sorry that I am not hard-working and interested in other tournaments enough, to take care of them right now :| @Island92: Please let me do this, or just bring me to wp:ANI if you like. You are too irrational to talk with now. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, why doing differently only for Champions/Europa League?--Island92 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Why in UEFA Euro 2020 Group F teams are so close to each other and linked twice and for Champions/Europa League do we have to link them just once?--Island92 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, @Centaur271188: get a consensus and then you're allowed to do this your personal change.--Island92 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Section break for summation

Island92 you're ignoring the points made above. And this isn't Centaur's "personal change": MOS:DL, which I remind you is policy, says "If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list [i.e., "read from top to bottom"], treat it as normal article prose." Two legs of a match very clearly fall into this category: they are meant to be read together, not as individual bits of data. In this case, "a link should appear only once". Right now, we're discussing the removal of duplicate links in the description of the second leg when the two legs, so from this to this. There's your sentence. As I read the above discussion, Centaur, Stevie and myself actively support this change. REDMAN is agreeable to this specific change at least, and Lee Vilenski similarly did not oppose. Crowsus didn't want to be involved further but acknowledges wp:overlink and would support the final decision, same as Mediocre Legacy. You are the only opposed participant in the discussion, and you have brought up no policy-based reason to answer the MOS:DL argument. I request that you treat this as the conclusion to this discussion. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you that you're going to have a big edit war with several IPs if you link the teams just once. For sure, it will happen to you. Try to avoid it and trust me about keeping the current format if you don't want to get troubles. It is just a reliable advice I'm giving you. Or should we semiprotect these articles infinitive in order to prevent IPs from reverting every time they can do it?--Island92 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Done and Done. Talk ended for me. It lastes too much, honestly. But ready to face several edit wars with IP's who are going to add again the double wikilinks from now.--Island92 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Island92 Thank you for helping! I guarantee it's not as big a deal to have IPs reverting the edit as you may think. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the page needs to be semi'd, it can be semi'd. Assuming you have only been on Wikipedia for 6 months as your account says, I promise I've seen this situation many, many more times than you have. We do not change Wikipedia policy because of the threat of IPs reverting changes. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with this change. In the old format when matches were separated by leg (for example 2002–03 UEFA Champions League knockout stage), this would not have worked as well. However, given matches are now separated by tie, I think it is a good solution and follows WP:OLINK. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Do you know why there was the change between formats? I mean the format is still the same, what changes is the representation on the Wikipedia page (from a section per leg to a section per tie). And whatever the reason, shouldn't it be changed also in earlier seasons for consistency? --SuperJew (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew, there was a past discussion here that gained consensus to divide matches by tie, not legs. Anyone is welcome to fix older articles, though it is a tedious task. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So it's something which should be done, but hasn't been (yet). --SuperJew (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at the result of this change and the pages look just weird. Blue team name, black name, blue again, black again. From the pure aesthetic standpoint, it got worse than before. Also, I don't see any kind of consensus being reached above, too few people participated. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would point to WP:CON saying that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", rather than a required number of people participating. There haven not been any major objections to this outcome that are based in WP policy as I can see. Alyo (chat·edits)

@BlameRuiner: Maybe off-topic but I feel the blue-black-blue-black-... sequence is better for my eyes. If I look at a matchlist full of blue team names, after a while my computer screen seems blurry. Just personal experience :) Centaur271188 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Renate Blindheim

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all, in the situation when you have a woman managing a men's team, would it be more appropriate to categorise her in Category:Norwegian women's football managers or Category:Norwegian football managers? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian women's football managers. Giant Snowman 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I find that strange. She isn't a women's football manager. I'd put them all in the main one. -Koppapa (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

She is a football manager who is a woman. That is what the category is for. We do not add male managers who manage female clubs/nations to the 'women's football manager' category. Giant Snowman 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, people in Category:Women's association football managers or its subcategories are meant to be managers in women's association football, while people in Category:Female association football managers are meant to be female managers in football? Therefore, given Blindheim has not managed a women's club or national team, Category:Norwegian women's football managers would not be appropriate. Either way, the category structure is confusing. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what GS says above, Yuri Bystritsky, Joseph Ladipo, Clyde Watson, Chris Tanzey, Steve Darby, Adrian Tucker, Michael Dickey, Robert Docherty, Kevin Milne, Peter Caulfield, and many more men are in Category:Women's association football managers or its subcats, which would suggest that category tree is intended for people who have managed women's teams, irrespective of their own gender. So by that logic, Blindheim should not be in that category, although she should be in Category:Female association football managers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

What S.A. Julio, ChrisTheDude and Koppapa said. She is a woman football manager, not a women's football manager. Gricehead (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Then we need a serious re-wording of the categories, because as it stands there will be many errors on Wikipedia, with people added to incorrect categories. After all, we do not have Category:Male association football managers or Category:Men's association football managers (nor should we by the way), and we national team articles are named e.g. England women's national football team and not England female national football team. Giant Snowman 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Footnote for 0 apps in the player club stats section

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Amad Diallo has been called up by Atalanta for the 2019–20 CL, without playing. I had put a footnote next to the 0 with the text "Appearance(s) in the UEFA Champions League" (the same note used for the 2020–21 season below). @Mattythewhite removed it as "if he made zero appearances there is no need for a note". I argue that it doesn't make sense to show "0" without saying in which competition he made 0 appearances (it could have been for the UEL, or some other competition). The sentence "Zero appearances in the UCL" is as syntactically correct as "Two appearances in the UCL". What should be done in these cases? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Matty - no need for a footnote in this situation. Giant Snowman 20:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement you quote above of "if he made zero appearances there is no need for a note" was made by @Stuart1234:, not me. My view is that the wording of the footnote implied that an actual appearance had been made when there hadn't. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah oops, I got confused. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed previous comment- not relevant. He made 0 appearances in the UCL, which is in the text anyway that he was called up but didn't play. So no need for the table to be more complicated with notes already explained in text. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Referee notability

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. What is the notability criteria for football referees? (My previous knowledge is that a referee must do an international FIFA match, but I'm not sure.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Refs should only be subject to WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Whilst being careful about WP:BLP1E as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:NFT player

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, does anyone know how Template:NFT player can be made to appear correctly in reference format using either |accessdate= or |access-date=? Currently, references appear in reference format when using |accessdate= (see Ghazi Ayadi#cite_note-NFT-1), which has since been deprecated and replaced with |access-date=, but appear in external link format when the latter is used (see Erling Haaland#cite_note-NFT-87). Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The three options you mentioned can be used. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the code on the second line decides whether to generate citeweb or EL format depending on the presence of an accessdate (no hyphen) parameter. Needs to test for either format on input. Beyond my capabilities to code it, but that's what needs doing AFAICT. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, does anyone know how to add |accessdate= or |access-date= to {{FA Lebanon player}}? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

churchill brothers

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Logo has been updated, please add from social media links as previous user vandalised my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.253.245 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The vandalizer has updated the logo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persija_Jakarta#/media/File%3APersija_Jakarta_logo.png

Stars are used when part of logo 👆 hope there will be user who uploads right. still small progress, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.253.245 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of being condescending, you could try asking how to do things, not expect that others do the dirty work for you and call them vandalizers. Asking "why are you on wiki at all sadly" was also uncalled for. Just tips for the future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Content of "Personnel and sponsoring" section

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't see a section for "Personnel and sponsoring" listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season template proposal, but this is nonetheless part of several league season articles. What is the actual consensus regarding the content of this section? Should only the most recent captains, head coaches/managers and sponsors be included (even though they have only so in the team's last game of the season) or should this section properly reflect the entire league season? Froztbyte (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it really that essential to know that during the 2012–13 Serie A season Sampdoria wore an Kappa shirt with a Gamenet sponsor? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Depends who you ask ;) I can point out quite a few of my friends who if you asked that them would think it isn't essential at all to know who was the champion of the 2012–13 Serie A season. --SuperJew (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the question, IMO it should reflect the entire league season, so if a captain changes mid-season, have both listed with an appropriate note to explain (as otherwise a reader might think it means they were co-captains). --SuperJew (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relevent Sports Group

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I work for Relevent Sports Group (RSG), the company that owns and operates the International Champions Cup. It would be helpful if someone here can take a look at Draft:Relevent Sports Group and assess if they think it's ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia and if not, to please help me clean up the draft so it is ready for publication. Thanks so much. SylviaatRSG (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have done some reorganising. Was a complex read, mixing up ICC and other promotions, so I've suggested dividing history into two strands, as well as making various other amendments, including assertions about being well-known, etc. Paul W (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

After further edits and checking citations, notability clear. Article now in mainspace. Paul W (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Piemonte Calcio

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This is the fictional name used by FIFA in their videogame since September 2019 for Juventus due to licensing issues with PES. The link redirected to FIFA 20#Licenses; @The Optimistic One has changed the redirect directly to Juventus F.C. Were should we redirect it? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the same issue applies to FIFA 21, so it doesn't make much sense to specifically redirect to FIFA 20. So if we are going to redirect to the game, then it should be to the overall article on the series....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. Giant Snowman 11:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like in that scenario the best target would be FIFA_(video_game_series)#2020s -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; I've moved the redirect there. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Football/Juventus F.C. task force

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I have created a new task force but the page needs a lot of edits. Please help me extend the page. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the page is needed, given that we are actually deleting club task forces. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is not necessary, why are there task forces on other clubs? Juventus is an historic club and I don't see the motivation not to create the task force. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As Nehme1499 said, the consensus is to delete the club task forces. Any which you see just haven't been dealt with yet. --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I understood. With good reasoning, I am in favor of canceling this and all the club's task forces. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As above, here is the link to the past consensus - Real Madrid and another one. Although deleting appears to take a great deal of time as the Real Madrid one required 3 separate deletions to completely purge it: Real Madrid deletion vote 1, Real Madrid deletion vote 2, Real Madrid deletion vote 3 RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

These are the ones that have not been deleted yet: there's 11 total: Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Celtic, DC United, Liverpool, Manchester United, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Sheffield United, and Sheffield Wednesday and Juventus. None of them are active based on their Talk pages. All have a last non-bot post of at least 4-8+ years ago RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would delete all team task forces, as all clearly inactive, and covered in country task forces, which tend to be more active. FYI, there is already a not very active Italy task force. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Club-specific task forces are overkill. Please take to WP:MFD. Giant Snowman 21:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily the case, but if anyone wants to nominate them at MfD, be my guest. I definitely think new task forces should seek consensus for their creation first though. – Pee Jay 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Home of Football

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

What do peeps make of this disambiguation page, is there anything else that should be on it? Govvy (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This. Maybe run it by WP:RFD? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: There is a logical argument that every single ground photographed by Stuart Roy Clarke by definition warrants inclusion in an expanded list. It then just becomes a Fork of Clarkes article. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The term has been documented as early as January 1925, when The Times noted, in reference to the 1925 F.A. Cup, that Lancashire, which is still regarded as the home of football, has been favoured by the draw. (Ref: The F.A. Cup, The Times, 9 January 1925) However, by 1954 that same paper proclaimed The British Isles, for all recent events, will always remain the home of football,..." (Ref: British Football At The Crossroads, The Times, 26 May 1954)

The World's Oldest Library was deleted. At the time I did not agree but now, having seen The Home of Football, I am inclined to agree such redirects/disambiguators should simply be deleted. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

hmm, I don't know, but you did seem to remove what I thought was a valid link to an artist about his football exhibit. I am just trying to cover a search term, and wondered if anything else can come under this search term or not. But it's just two items on there at the moment and wondered if there was anything else that can be added. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I provided two further examples above. I have now bolded them for emphasis. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Death of Park Jung-bae

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

IPs keep adding that Park Jung-bae (footballer) died in 2017 - I cannot find any sources? Any help? Giant Snowman 11:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

He seems to be declared dead (in 2017) on some other language Wikis (and also on Wikidata), though none of them have any sources for it. I tried doing a search on his Korean name, and couldn't find anything either. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've posted to the Talk page of the Korean article asking for help: https://ko.wiki.x.io/wiki/토론:박정배_(축구인)#Source_for_death Hoping for an answer there, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Help with a footballer, as WP Korea seems reasonably active. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd also noticed other language Wikis had a death date but none of them had a source... Giant Snowman 12:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Following discussion at the Talk page of the Korean article, the mention has been removed there. The date of death was added by an IP and the two Korean editors I had the discussion with were not able to find a reliable source to back the claim. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hey all,

Just having a look through to standardise all of the National teams pages that are on Wikipedia, mainly the Records section and was wondering whether anyone had any thoughts regarding the table layout, the use of columning and the use of images in this section?

Currently the template looks as shown below:

Records

As of 1 January 2020

Players in bold are still active, at least at club level.

Most capped players

#	Name	Caps	Goals	Career
1	Tim Template	100	2	1996–2007
2	Ed Example	99	1	1992–2006
3	Bob Template	95	10	2006–present
3	Bill Illustration	95	10	2006–0000

Top goalscorers

#	Name	Goals	Caps	Ratio	First cap	Last cap
1	Bob Template (list)	10	95	0.11	1 April 2006	2 August 2016
2	Bill Illustration (list)	8	40	0.2	1 January 2007	18 January 2020
3	Tim Template	2	100	0.02	1 April 2010	1 January 2013
3	Jim Generic	2	105	0.02	1 January 1994	1 April 2020

So here are the questions:

1) How should equal players be rowspan'd? Do people prefer just spanning the numbers or also the matching statistic (either caps or goals, whichever is the relevant statistic to that table - shown in top goalscorers as an example)

2) Should the two tables be columned? Or should they appear one after another? Or should they only be columned if there is no accompanying image?

3) Who's images should be displayed in this section? How should they be displayed? If the tables are columned then should these be included in a third column? (Or is columning already making the page clustered and should they just be shown one after another, only showing either the top appearance maker or goalscorer on the right?)

4) Do people prefer displaying active players as present or using 0|0000? (as shown in the top appearances table)? Or would people prefer the First and Last cap format as displayed for goalscorers (potentially aligned to the left rather than centered)?

Cheers for your input, Felixsv7 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would only span the rank number, definitely not the individual statistics. There has already been a discussion regarding spanning the competition or the stadium for the players' international goals table if a player has played in the same competition (or stadium) in two matches in a row. We decided to not span (unless obviously the player scored two or more goals in the same game, then the stadium or competition within the same game would be spanned).
I think columning should not be forced. If we absolutely need to have a standard, then I'm indifferent if the section doesn't have an image. If it has an image, I would most definitely say no to columning (so the two tables would be on top of each other).
The image of a relevant player (so either the best, second best, the best current, or something of the sort; obviously this would be based on what images are available). If we want to display two images (one for the top scorer and one for the top app person, for example), I would use {{Multiple image}} (as is done on Belgium's page).
I prefer present (not italicized). The first and last cap format for me is more appropriate in pages such as List of Lebanon international footballers.

Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with all points that Nehme1499 made though I'd state that columned tables appear neater on desktops as it leaves less white space and on mobile it automatically displays as if it weren't columned therefore the columning shouldn't have an effect. However if the section has images then leaving them one after another seems fair. As for the other points I have no preference, just seeking consensus. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd format both as the most capped players example you've given. Keeping the stats separate makes it easier to follow along the rows in the table especially if you have 3+ players on the same number of caps/goals. Agree with Nehme re- images/columns. The most relevant image would be one of the most capped player/top scorer respectively. I don't think you would need any other player unless there was no image available for the top player. Although, featured article Scotland national football team has neither table listed and instead links to lists of players articles. For a lot of teams though, it's probable that, unlike Scotland, a full list of players doesn't exists and a table summary like that would probably be the best solution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Scottish tables are shown on a separate page, linked to in their Records section. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I saw you remove the Managers column on the Competitive record. I was copying that from England national football team to show who the head coach was for each particular tournament. Admittedly I haven't seen it done elsewhere, just thought it may be something to consider and could be pertinent information. Thoughts? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant information. Might as well link the captain(s), or the top scorer in that competition. It isn't really pertinent information to the competitive record tables. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Davinson Sánchez

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For some reason the article gets trolled, could use a few more eyes on it. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:FIFA World Cup winning team starting goalkeepers

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is {{FIFA World Cup winning team starting goalkeepers}} necessary? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, personally. Smacks of creating a template for the sake of it. Is there {{FIFA World Cup winning team starting left-wingers}} or {{FIFA World Cup winning team starting centre halves}}......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have started a deletion discussion here- feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a wider discussion about template creator @Lnhbm: here - a quick glance through their contribs (including deleted) shows they are, at best, an over enthusiastic creator of templates, many of which are questionable, and at worst they simply do not understand what is acceptable and what is not. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Team order in the results table in league season articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In a few 2020–21 league season articles, editors have been changing the team order in the results table from alphabetical order to the team order/ranking from the league table. I imagine alphabetical is the way it should be, mainly because I have never seen it any other way. Something new to look for while editing. Equineducklings (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the {{updated}} template, we write "As of match played 19 November 2019", but "As of goal scored on 10 October 2019" (see the MOS). Shouldn't both have "on" before the date? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would have "As of match played date" for both. All the goals scored and matches played will be up to the same date anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. For the international goals section, it would be better to write "as of match played". Robby.is.on (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've amended the MOS. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CAF confederation cup group D

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

sorry, i'm newbie, I don't know how, but CAF confederation cup group D on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_CAF_Confederation_Cup has the wrong last team. It shall be Namungo instead of 1º de Agosto. The aggregate score is 4–7, Namungo win i couldn't change it due to no editing experience on appropriate pages. please help Interkrok (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They have not played single match yet it seems. Kante4 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah sorry, misunderstood the question. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 in Belgian football#Managerial changes

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone, could anyone explain to me why on 2020–21 in Belgian football#Managerial changes the labeled section from 2020–21 Belgian First Division A is not displayed, while the section from 2020–21 Belgian First Division B is? I'm probably just overlooking something but can't figure it out. Thanks! Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pelotas: The difference is that parts of the ""A" article are marked with <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>. Over at Help:Labeled section transclusion#Functions summary, it says that #lst "honors transclusion tags", so the parts of the "A" article that are outside the onlyinclude tags are not eligible for transclusion, even though labelled with <section /> tags. The solution, I think would be re-do the onlyinclude sections using more <section /> tags instead. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@John of Reading: I've just put <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> around the managerial changes part and that seems to work. Thanks! Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Vinícius

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can I ask, for Portuguese, when referring to his name in the article should we just be writing Carlos ? I ask because I only just saw the question on the article talk page there, so I am also completely unsure. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen in English articles, we should use Vinícius instead of Carlos.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the Template:Portuguese name in that article may be misleading. If he were using the "standard" Portuguese naming system, then Alves and Morais are his 2 surnames, and Morais should be the one used (as that's the paternal surname). However, the sources seem to refer to him as Carlos Vinícius, which implies Vinícius is his surname. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be common for Brazilians. See Alex Sandro for example, who's surnames are Lobo and Silva. He is referred to as "Alex Sandro" throughout the article as that's the most common way to call him. I think it should be evaluated case by case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be case by case. In a lot of cases like this, the middle name acts like a last name, like CR7, Alex Sandro, Radamael Falcao etc.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tournament Brackets

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

My edit to 1989–90 European Cup removing the Bracket section was reverted by Peejay with the reason " brackets provide a convenient summary of the path each team took through the tournament". Is including a bracket in articles of cups/tournaments that weren't played on a bracket basis acceptable? For example it states the winners of Milan/HJK would face the winners of Real Madrid/Spora. In reality there would have been a second round draw pitting Milan v Real. Doesn't it violate WP:OR? Dougal18 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we include it for current iterations of the Champions League (example), I don't see it as a problem. It's still a knock-out tournament, so the information represented in the bracket is accurate. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I presume the reference to the tournament "not being played on a bracket basis" refers to the fact that the whole thing wasn't pre-drawn like, say, Wimbledon is? I don't think the presentation of the bracket would automatically make people assume that it was all pre-drawn. At the end of the day, the tournament was still played on a "winner moves into the next round to play another winner from the previous round" basis, which is what the bracket shows. I have seen such brackets presented in football annuals for the FA Cup, which is similarly not all pre-drawn. I think its inclusion is valid....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would remove it as it is not pre-drawn and just a "random" bracket which is either added after all matches are played or edited after every round, which is both very odd. Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as original research as it is merely presenting the results in a logical format to show progress. If some are misinterpreting the bracket as predetermined then the random nature of the round by round draws could be mentioned in a footnote below the bracket. Anyway, where does it specify that a bracket has to be fully predetermined? Bracket (tournament) (rightly or wrongly) seems to suggest both types are possible. --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kante4, I don't think it should be used for competitions other than the Euros/World Cup etc which use the bracket to determine fixtures as it doesn't accurately represent a series of random draws. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I say keep the brackets with a note. They give a good overview. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter, they provide a good overview and a note about when each draw was made should suffice. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of footballers with 500 or more goals

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was expecting to see Pele or Ronaldo at the top of the list, or the Czech player from the 50s who was speculated to have scored more goals than both of them. Instead it's an uncapped German player who I can barely find on Google.

It seems like the entire list is copied directly from an RSSSF page. Now that page lists Tommy Lawton as history's 14th highest scorer with 657 goals. Which seems pretty screwy to me as I wrote his Wikipedia article and put in a stats table with 260 league goals. He likely scored a load as a guest player in the wartime leagues but they've never been included in any player's stats totals.

There's quite a bit of discussion on the talk page and I imagine it's quite a popular article so I thought I'd bring it to attention here.Echetus Xe 00:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The most intelligent thing to do is to include the RSSSF table called "Best Goalscorers All-Time (Top level (variant of author!))", which only takes into account "top-level" competitions. It would be a good idea to contact the author (Vladimir Kolos) for further clarification. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The heading of that RSSSF list is "Best Goalscorers All-Time (official matches)", but as you note, the only way that anyone could arrive at a figure that high for Tommy Lawton is to include wartime matches, which have never been considered official. Also, all the media outlets that recently ballyhooed about Ronaldo becoming the highest-scoring player of all time clearly hadn't seen this list :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Houston Dynamo FC

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So, been editing player pages for Houston Dynamo FC and noticed in the club article that there are so many sections that just seem unnecessary. How do we feel about the kit sections? Seems very bulky, unsourced. The rivalries table seems not needed especially when we have a page for the Texas Derby. Why do we need revenue and profitability when that is legit the MLS salary cap while the ranking is not technically correct since that is just base salaries and based on the salaries released by the MLS Players Association. And then the tables in the broadcasting section... way to bulky, the sources are not good or don't exist. Just seems like a lot of tables that just are not needed. Thoughts? Don't want to just remove without conversation. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Uniforms' section per WP:NOTGALLERY. If there is other stuff which is unreferenced, poorly referenced and/or simply not appropriate, please WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Giant Snowman 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be a idea to move the kits to this page on Wikimedia commons. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Player-managers

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I think it would be useful if we added notes for when players are player-managers. This avoids a lot of confusion and avoids write "player-manager" every time in the infobox. Is what I did on André Strappe appropriate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say there is nothing wrong with adding (player-manager) after the relevant club entry in the manager section of the infobox. Giant Snowman 16:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing player manager is easier for user navigation than using a note, where they have to click on the note everytime, which then takes them to the notelist. Having player manager in the infobox means it's no clicks instead of 1 or 2. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

But it gets really messy and confusing -- if a player is player-manager for one season and only manager the next and then switches to another club and does that again.... and also I don't really know where to put the "player-manager"... in the club career or managerial career section of the infobox? Or both? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternative: leave it out of the infobox entirely and simply explain the situation in the prose. Giant Snowman 17:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If a player managed a club between 1985 and 1997 and was also registered as a player but only between 1985 and 1991 after which he retired as a player then I would say we should list the club in the playing section of the infobox between 1985 and 1991 but in the managerial section for the whole period. In the (seemingly relatively unlikely) scenario that he then went to another club where he was manager and also "un-retired" as a player, then just show the appropriate dates for when he did each thing (which will mean there's a gap in his playing history but so be it) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @ChrisTheDude: I think the suggestion from GiantSnowman is the best, we should just leave it out completely. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Scheduled matches

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

First of all, apologies if I'm going about this the wrong way. As I'm sure you can see, I'm quite new to this aspect of Wikipedia. My query relates specifically to the current Juventus season page, but applies more generally.

Until last season it was normal practice to include all scheduled matches for the season. This season practice has changed for league matches only, so that only ones that have been assigned a specifc time are included. This is not consiststent across competitions, since the Supercoppa final was on the page without a date for a long time.

It has been argued that games that haven't been assigned a specific time are more likely to postponed, but certainly this year has had postponements at short notice. In other yeras, these kinds of reschedulings can happen anyway especially in latter parts of the season with cup commitments being upredictable (I've certainly bought tickets that said the match time was subject to change). Publication of a time is by no means final and should not be regarded as such.

Additionally the currently practice limits utility of the page. Currently, for example, the A.C. Milan season page shows no Serie A matches beyond Wednesday (in 3 days time!). The Juventus one shows an additional fixture (which was postposned after the time had been decided). I cannot see any benefit to there being limited infomration on these pages. The upcoming matches have indicative dates that should be used, but in any case, there is important infomration held in the order of matches played (e.g. I could see a tough run of matches at the end of the season), and a link can be provided to the expected venue. The infomration on upcoming matches is (of course) published by the Lega Serie A (The governing body of the Serie A) and is clearly important/accurate enough to be published on their website.

I really hope the current practice can bet reversed.

-- BeeGoal (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about that was here. There is no reason to not display them. Kante4 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to that link. If there are no sigificant objections raised in the coming days, I'll go ahead and update the season page and refer to these discussions for the rationale. - BeeGoal (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Josué Pesqueira

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Can somebody keep an eye on this page, there is a repeated attempt by an IP user to restore this version [12] which deletes references from the infobox and honours, adds an original research style of play section, and rewrites not-broken sections in broken English. This version is verbatim one by [13] User:Assaf Official, who has not edited since being reverted on this page in November. Other similarities to this user are listed on the talk page. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:8B8:E2FD:BC81:CC40 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This guy won't discuss, we need outside opinions, and quickly 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:C13C:4C62:BFA9:B3F8 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the version by @Microwave Anarchist: from this morning - with no comment on which version is correct. Both IPs have been warned for edit warring. Giant Snowman 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, the claim made in an edit summary that sources are not required for a style of play section made me chuckle, especially when the edit added such gems as "Josué is a Playmaker with excellent physical fitness and a technically fantastic ability with his left foot, a combination of these abilities makes him a quality player, so he seems to be in all parts of the field" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Israel national football team

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all,

Who should be listed as Israel's top scorer in the infobox?

Mordechai Spiegler has either 32 (or 33) goals in 82 matches according to the Israeli Football Association or 24 goals in 57 appearances according to FIFA (per RSSSF) which would have him as tied top scorer with Eran Zahavi. Which statistic should be listed in the infobox? The problem is that some of Spiegler's goals were either scored in Olympic competition or against non A-international sides.

I re-did the Records table to reflect FIFA's cap/goal numbers along with Notes explaining the discrepancies but wanted to know what the policy was regarding a disparity between a nation's FA's count and FIFA's count.

1) Old Table
2) New Table

Cheers

Felixsv7 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: RSSSF's number's aren't necessarily FIFA's numbers. They have independent researchers, and sometimes information is partial (I know this for a fact for Lebanon, for example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor club change name

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. When a club changes name from Templates United to Sporting Templates FC, a note would probably be necessary in the infobox. The question is when a club switches from Template FC to Template SC. Since we only already write "Template", would a note explaining the name change still be needed? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say no. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree - no. Giant Snowman 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Greek clubs in European/worldwide competitions

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. For some reason an IP address is adding fake stats/honours to the pages of AEK Athens F.C., Olympiacos F.C. and Panathinaikos F.C.. We could use a few more eyes on it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to WP:AIV. Giant Snowman 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do both these articles need to exist?

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be considerable overlap - is there any genuine reason for both articles to exist separately.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ditch the second one (as it's entirely contained within the first). Note: I was asked (but declined) to help nominate the first for FL status. I did some minor corrections and wikilinking on it, though. Gricehead (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Second one duplicates the first one, so no- and 2015 is a arbitrary cut off date. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically the second one doesn't totally duplicate the first - the second takes those teams listed in the first and adds in their results from the qualifying rounds (which aren't present in the first) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the cut-off is 2015 because we only have existing WP articles on the CdF qualifying rounds since 2015 and the editor who created it just settled for using that info rather than seeking any more from other sources....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have a problem with both titles as well, but... I'm out of patience so steering clear. (Overseas is a direct translation of Outre-mer, which has a specific meaning in France, which isn't the same as overseas, otherwise all the Coriscan teams would have to be listed) Gricehead (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Second one should definitely go, first one possibly. Giant Snowman 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell Batista da Silva

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There appears to be two footballers here...GrahamHardy (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How so? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

One footballer, who lied about his name and age, apparently. But soccerway et al have not merged the profiles, so two profiles appear in the external links section. The Globo Esporte article in the references lays it all out. Gricehead (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue? Giant Snowman 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to a Google translate of the source [14] in article, in 2012, they admitted lying about their name and age, and are 2 years older than they previously admitted. And it verifies his name as "Maxwell Batista da Silva-not Jorbison Reis dos Santos", which are both the full old and new names of the 2 Soccerway sources. Therefore, as that source seems to be a RS (it's from Latin America's biggest TV network), looks like it's one person, but SW needs to update. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I get that. I don't get Graham's original post? Giant Snowman 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was confusingly written previously and it was not entirely clear why there were 2 names/dobs listed. Spike 'em (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2019–20 FAO Women's League

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The league and all associated articles. I was contemplating nominating a load of articles for AfD. I couldn't see this passing FOOTYN or GNG. I am going to bed anyway, so if anyone decides they are feeling ruthless! Govvy (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily support this, it's possible the seasons aren't notable but the clubs and league definitely are based on a quick search, Odisha women's football receives coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You think they are okay to keep?? Govvy (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Zlatko Kranjčar

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I've gone through a bit of the article, added sources, but anyone that wants to help clean it up, please do, I've also put it forward for ITN RD. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the matches he played in 1990 counted as official caps? Hack (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, on Worldfootball.net I don't see the Croatia caps. I've had a good cleanup of the article know. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have an article for the unofficial Croatia vs US match. Hack (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The HNS does have him down with two official caps even though Croatia weren't FIFA members at the time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's similar to the SFA, they count a match against a Hong Kong League XI (here) in their statistics and thus everyone that played in the game was awarded a cap even though it's not an official match. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a good bit of work into fixing up the article, it's still up for ITN RD, if you like please add your support, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Xavi Simons, Timothée Pembélé, Kays Ruiz-Atil, and Édouard Michut

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I am getting really confused with these four PSG youth players and what to classify them as. Let's go one by one.
Xavi Simons: Oblow14 keeps on removing Simons from the PSG squad template & makes him a U19 player on his article because he is not included in the club website's squad page. My argument is that even if he isn't, he should be classified as a first team player because he has been training with the first team since the beginning of January and has even made his pro debut already. This is enough to be counted in the first team for me. He even has a pro contract. What more can you ask apart from inclusion in the official club website pro squad?
Kays Ruiz-Atil: he was sent back to train with the U19 squad and has not appeared since 5 December 2020. What should be done with Ruiz-Atil? Do we say he is still on PSG or do we put him on PSG U19?
Timothée Pembélé: he is on the bench every week, has been training with the squad since the beginning of the season, and made 6 appearances including one in the UCL. IMO he is on PSG and not PSG U19, even if he isn't in the pro squad. There seems to be a double standard with Xavi Simons & Kays Ruiz, because Pembélé isn't on the club's squad list on the site but is still in the template.
Édouard Michut: he just made his debut today and has been training with the first team since January. I think this makes him part of PSG.
Personally, in my opinion all of these players should be considered part of PSG and not PSG U19, with maybe an exception for Ruiz-Atil because he literally got sent back to the U19s. What's your opinion on this? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why the views of some editors that there should be constant fluidity between junior and senior teams does not work, and why maintaining the rule that once a senior player, always a senior player is the only way forward. Giant Snowman 19:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really..? This actually goes more in favour of keeping youth and senior career independent from one another. All of these should be senior players, yes. If they should also be youth players should be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, all of them are senior and ONLY senior and should be in the template, while Ruiz-Atil should not be in the template, should still have PSG only, but have the youth career open. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If by the template you mean {{Paris Saint-Germain F.C. squad}}, then all senior players + youth players who have been capped at least once (in any competitive match) should be in there. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant by the "template" - sorry for that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think once a player signs a pro contract, his youth career should be close. Ruiz-Atil is a pro training with juniors, and not a junior aspiring to a contract. I think the contract is an important distinction, at least in French football.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this too much detail?

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

So, I saw this article Will Bruin was recently edited to add alot of extra detail, basically every goal he scored. The article basically reads now like "On Day A, he scored against B. On Day C, he scored twice against D. On day E he scored against F. That season he had X goals in Y games." Then again for each subsequent season. Seems a bit superfluous, but the editor definitely put in quite a bit of effort. I notice this editor from their contribution history has added a lot of detail to other articles, but I haven't looked at those. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely too much. There is absolutely no need to detail every single goal a player scored. I notice that this particular article even seems to detail every game in which he got an assist! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if they were a defender/goalkeeper, or only scored like 10 career goals, but this is a reasonably decent striker! Cull. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I make it one paragraph for each season of his Senior career. I would have thought this is about appropriate. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIARY covers this exact situation : Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are...news reporting about...sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "one paragraph per season" is an extremely generous expectation of the amount of content in a player's article. In this paragraph, I have scored through everything I think is not actually significant enough to merit mentioning:

Bruin and the Dynamo opened the 2012 season on March 11 with a 1–0 win over Chivas USA. On April 15, he scored his first goal of the season in a 1–1 draw with the Chicago Fire. In Houston's next match, Bruin scored once and recorded an assist as the Dynamo drew 1–1 with the Columbus Crew. On April 28, Bruin made it three straight games with a goal, finding the back of the net twice in a 3–2 loss to D.C. United. On June 16, he scored once in a 2–1 win over Texas Derby rivals FC Dallas. Four days later, he scored in the 73rd and 90th minutes to give Houston a 3–3 draw with Toronto FC. On June 23, he scored for the third straight game during a 4–2 loss to the Montreal Impact.[8] Bruin ended the MLS regular season with 12 goals and 4 assists from 32 appearances to help Houston qualify for the playoffs.[6][9] In the opening round of the playoffs, Bruin scored twice to give the Dynamo a 2–1 win over Chicago. He had a goal and an assist in Houston's next game, a 2–0 win over Sporting Kansas City in leg 1 of the Eastern Conference semifinals. Bruin and the Dynamo would lose the second leg 1–0, but advanced 2–1 on aggregate. In the first leg of the Conference finals, Bruin scored once in a 3–1 win over D.C. United. Houston and Bruin drew leg 2 to advance to MLS Cup 2012. Bruin played the full 90 minutes in MLS Cup as Houston lost to the Galaxy for the second straight season, this time by a score of 3–1.[8] During the season, Bruin also made 2 appearances in the group stage for the 2012–13 CONCACAF Champions League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this was the edit before the expansion. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Be brutal. All that is needed is key moments (first game, first goal, finals etc.) - we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac or fan site! Giant Snowman 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I cut it down to a more reasonable length. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 AFC Cup

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The competition began, with some groups playing three matchdays. It was cancelled altogether due to COVID-19. Should the statistics be included in a player's career statistics table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends on whether the competition was cancelled or vacated, which I don't know the answer to. I'd default to "yes, include" unless the AFC specifically stated that nothing counts. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What are the independent, reliable sources saying? Eldumpo (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TP Mazembe

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should TP Mazembe be written as Mazembe or TP Mazembe in the infobox, headings, career stats etc.? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TP Mazembe seems to be the preferred form in Linafoot pages. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TP Mazembe at RSSSF. Eldumpo (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Bert Kassies' site as source

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Have there been any prior discussions on the use of Bert Kassies' site as a source? It is used widely and does seem to be accurate, but I note a user is removing it. Valenciano (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

His site is given a link at RSSSF - perhaps not enough in itself. Eldumpo (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick search says no, but it's linked to and mentioned by reliable sources (not sure about the Daily Record?), referenced on RSSSF, and even used in a couple published scholarly articles. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think it meets that neatly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelvedon Hatch F.C.

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I'm trying to work out if this club has ever played at Step 6 or above. If my interpretation of FCHD is correct, there is nothing on there to suggest so nor any appearances in a national cup. Is there a website that displays this info prior to 1985 as this club has apparently been around for 101 years? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says "Up until the 1970s, the club continued to play in local football leagues, however wanting more from the football club the decision was made to join the Greene King South Essex League. The Club was successfully admitted to the league where it continued to play for many years" - these are not league that confer notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now removed the whole history section as it was copied and pasted from the club's own website -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note also that the club was deleted as non-notable in 2008 and nothing has changed since then in terms of what level it plays at...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Taking all of this on board, I see no harm in starting a discussion at AfD given that it is no longer eligible for PROD. I managed to find a couple of sources mentioning the club and have included those in the discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Exercised the loan purchase mid-season

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

Juventus just announced today that they have applied the option for puchase of Weston McKennie's loan. Is he still on loan until the end of the season, or is he officially a Juventus player from today? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From today by the sounds of it - "Da oggi è anche un giocatore della Juventus a titolo definitivo, con il club bianconero che ha esercitato il diritto di opzione per l'acquisizione del suo cartellino dallo Schalke 04" / "From today he is also a Juventus player outright, with the Juventus club exercising the right of option for the acquisition of his card from Schalke 04" (according to Google Translate). Giant Snowman 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For me, I would wait for the transaction to be completed at the beginning of the window. Clubs can't just acquire players mid season, they can make a deal to do so, but the deal is 100% completed in the window. I did this for Yvan Neyou. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If the new four-year contract is from today, I would put it as today. If it is from 1 June 2021, then we wait. At least that is how I see it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop clubs making a loan permanent outside the transfer window. See here for Preston doing it with 2 of their 7 loanees, to get round the rule that only allows 5 in a matchday squad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From everything I have read, there has been nothing outright stating that McKennie will officially sign permanently in the next window. Indeed, almost every source has simply stated that Juventus have exercised the option to make the loan deal permanent. I suppose that without further clarification from the club, McKennie himself, or some other official outlet, the reports mean what they say—namely, that McKennie, as of today, is a full member of Juventus's squad and no longer a Schalke player in any form. Otherwise, as has been the case with others, like Anthony Knockaert at Fulham, it was made explicit that the transfer would become permanent after the loan was completed. In this case, though, no one seems to be saying that. Anwegmann (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee and Anwegmann: Pinging involved users. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just a precedent that I've seen used where loan options don't come into effect until 30 June XXXX. We just have to be consistent. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the consistency is that we follow what the sources say - and in this case the sources say he signed on a permanent basis for Juventus with effect from today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tim Howard joined Everton on loan from Manchester United and mid-season signed a permanent contract. Wikipedia treats that as the end of a loan and a new contract.RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Although this article cited in Howard's article does state that Howard's contract became permanent because the Premier League allows "domestic loans" to be made permanent outside the window (appears to be the same as those Preston loans mentioned above which were also from teams in the English divisions). I'm not sure about the Italian federations rules, but I could imagine that it would be similar, but given this isn't a domestic loan, maybe it can only be "officially official" during the transfer window. Maybe it has the same status as a "pre-contract" signed by a player in that "six month window" before a contract expiration that takes effect when the window opens. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence he's signing a contract at the end of the season, and the way the article is worded makes it seem like it started this month. I would use the 3rd of March as starting point. Without the contract on hand, we can't assume the details, we only have what's in front of us.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Everton F.C.

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I did little cleanup, of unneeded bits on the top, but I don't see the achieve bot code. Probably needs it. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)