Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 143

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 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

→

Morgan Boyes

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There seems to be a dispute over where he was born. The official Liverpool website gives his birthplace as Chester but there is this Welsh page which says he was definitely born in St Asaph. I am inclined to believe the former as there is a rather obvious lack of impartiality in the Welsh one. What are others thoughts on it? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If Mr Boyes has just told that interviewer that he's Welsh, then it could be allegiance rather than geographical fact, but if he's told her he was born in St Asaph, then I'd believe him ahead of a club website any day of the week. Added to which, the BBC ran a similar story a few days before the Welsh one was published. And the Wrexham-based Leader describes him as St Asaph-born and Chester-raised. We can't use primary sources to source a living person's birthplace, I don't see why we can't use them to tell which of conflicting reliable sources is correct, and if we did, we'd find he was born in Denbighshire. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I found the same sources as Struway2. The BBC is a pretty reliable source on these things, so I'd be inclined to go along with that. Nice to hear about another person born in the same city as me! – Pee Jay 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not the first official club site to get something wrong - and won't be the last. I agree go with BBC et al. Giant Snowman 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the place of birth and cleaned up the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

FC Steaua București

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

FC Steaua București was converted to a disambiguation page yesterday by Flix11, after a highly chaotic recent history of being retargeted many times over the past months. This solution seems to make sense, although as far as I can see there hasn't been any centralised discussion about it. Anyway, if this indeed is going to be the long-term solution, that means the 1500+ links to FC Steaua București will need to be fixed. If I understand correctly, that could be a messy business based on both clubs claiming to be the legal successor of the original club. So probably not something I'll be involved in myself, but I thought bringing it to your attention might help. Lennart97 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If the name is really to be a DAB then surely if should do so via a redirect to Steaua București rather than as a copy with almost the same content? Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The 2 DABs seem to have different views on history, as one claimed FCSB illegally used the name for many years and the other that it is "the original club established in 1947" It does need a centralized discussion to decide on properly rather than via redirect wars. Spike 'em (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems silly to have two DAB pages for the same thing. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't have two dabs for the same thing. One of them should redirect to the other- assuming that it's correct for it to have been converted to a dab page in the first place (which is something I don't know enough about to comment on). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Talk:FCSB, it may be worth waiting for a final court decision before choosing what content goes where. Many of the links refer to the old club, so sending them via a redirect to whichever current club wins the history might be more accurate than diverting them to either of the new clubs on the dab. Certes (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Indian Super League club pages

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, could I have some help over at the pages for some Indian Super League clubs. You have Imsamrat392 (talk · contribs) adding in unsourced and, quite frankly, unnecessary boxes and then reverting without any reason when I remove them (besides the one time he gave the reason about respecting the page or something). You have the following:

NorthEast United which has an "departments" template box when there are only two teams, the main team and the reserves. Why do we need a departments box? A completely unsourced "Crest, colours and kits" section, with a kit evolution part which is both unsourced and unnecessary, and the "Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors" section which is mainly unsourced and the ones that are sourced are not reliable sources such as "sportskhabri" or "bizbehindsports". We also have an unsourced "assists" table and on wikipedia, we don't really have a standard definition for what counts as an assist.
FC Goa, this was actually a revert through Vikas Sethia (talk · contribs) without any explanation. We have, again, a "departments" table with just the main team, a nolinked women's team, and the reserves. The "Kit evolution" is again, unsourced, and is not really relevant with a team that changes kit every season. The "Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors" is again mainly unsourced with a dash of non-independent reliable sources.
Hyderabad, again, reverted by Vikas Sethia without any reasoning. Why are we linking "Nizams" to Nizam of Hyderabad? Why do we have a departments box again! These are not multi-sport organizations! And the "Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors" is again not from reliable sources or a verified twitter handle. Also, I am not sure about affiliated clubs. Seems unnecessary to me but I will let consensus work here.
Mumbai City: Again, reverted by Vikas Sethia without any reasoning. The same as before... department box with just the main team and reserves. The unsourced winning squad from this seasons Indian Super League. Is this also needed? Just because some European teams have it after winning the UEFA Champions League. Do I even need to explain the kit evolution and sponsors sections? Also, the "notable player" section is definitely unnecessary and also why is the standard "40 caps for the national team". No proper page I know has a section like this. Finally, none of the "Individual records" are sourced and again, all just unnecessary when we have List of Mumbai City FC records and statistics.
And the same with Jamshedpur FC, Odisha FC, and Chennaiyin FC.

Any help here would be appreciated because this is crazy. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Any responses to the above? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: Honestly I hate to say it, but it was why I gave up previously editing articles on Indian teams, they are so bad and anytime you fix it random IPs or new accounts revert you. They are full of unsourced information or what is said, isn't in the source provided, just felt like a battle I couldn't win, even if I was "right". I've done some editing on those links but I don't hold my breath that they will stick. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. Why do you think I am sticking with US soccer articles right now... I had to take an extended wikibreak after the whole ATK Mohun Bagan debacle. Editing Indian football articles has definitely become more toxic since around 2017-18 or so and I am not sure why (Indian Super League maybe?). But yeah, thanks for your edits, let's see. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny enough it was ATK Mohun Bagan that made me give up as well. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha, the worst thing was coming back like, 2-3 months later, and seeing the damn page made! Like, I was arguing for this for months, been rejected a lot, told things offline etc. and then I leave and it happens. What a world. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.T v x1 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Transfer window

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone please update the section with the table with the dates? This is important because it will be useful for knowing when to make transfers of players like Gregor Kobel and Mike Maignan official. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

if it's contract expiration and someone joining another team on a free, it's July 1st. If it's loan becoming permo, it's instant. If it's someone buying a player, it's June 9th as that's when the window opens.Muur (talk)

Yes, but there are different dates for different leagues. June 9th doesn't apply to every league. If someone could update this section, it would be very helpful. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Please, this is REALLY IMPORTANT. READ THIS. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to update this section's chart on transfer window. I have already updated France (both windows) and the summer window for England (although I didn't check the EFL's website and I don't know if it's different than the EPL.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These are the transfer windows per country for 2021 RedPatch (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Goals for and against as Manager

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

So I notice that Carlo Ancelotti and Zinedine Zidane include goals for and against in their managerial statistics, which most manager pages don't include. I feel like this should be removed, it seems easy to fuck up and also screams original research where someone has manually counted each goal.Muur (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

At worst it would be routine calculation. Personally, I don't mind if they are included or not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as the data used in the routine calculation is sourced, I don't have a problem, but we ought to double-check it. – Pee Jay 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

While it is a routine calculation to sum up the figures, is it worth bothering? I for one cannot recall ever seeing such a stat in outside sources, which is why one would have to add the figures themselves in the first place. In other words, while the calculation may be routine, the fact that no one else has already done it tells me that this is such a trivial level of excess detail that we shouldn't include it. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Feels a bit NOTSTATS to me - and what sources are tracking this kind of information? Giant Snowman 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Users in this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round#The Q tag. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Is there a standard we go by for the creation of "List of international goals scored by ..." standalone lists? I see that List of international goals scored by Harry Kane has recently been created. Kane is England sixth's highest scorer, and considering that the fourth and fifth highest scorers don't have standalone lists I don't get why Kane should? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This was most recently discussed here and I think there was another discussion that tried to get a number that anyone who had scored more than that number of international goals should have a page (unless they are or have been the nation's top scorer) but I don't know if a consensus on that was ever reached. I'd suggest though that the Kane article would be similar to the Ramos one that got deleted following the AfD which sparked that discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw this happen a few days ago, I was thinking of reversing it. It's not a huge list, but I decided to let it be. I don't really have complaints about it being split off. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If the Kane list stays then I think the "assist" column should be removed as non-standard for these lists, and entries in the notes column such as "Assisted a goal by Mason Mount" should definitely go. This is a list of Kane's goals, so why would it note that he also happened to set up a goal for someone else? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that totally fails WP:NOTSTATS and should be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: How do you feel it fails NOTSTATS? The list is pretty clear of what's it about, it's not indiscriminate. So..? Govvy (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it's just one player's career statistics. Like, it's literally nothing but an article about a statistic. Merge it into Harry Kane's article. Frankly, it's just not independently notable. oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends, they often get split off when an article reaches its data limit, these tend to be common content forks. Kane's article is already a fair size and I personally think it's a valid content fork. Also consider his career is not yet over and the article size will only increase. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the text in the lead is unsourced original research, and no evidence it meets WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. And that notes section in the table is just random notes with no benefit at all. And I see no benefit to having a list of every goal scored by players anyway, least of all in a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that no fewer than 32 similar lists are FLs, so clearly there were no NOTSTATS or NLIST concerns when those were promoted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. In February I did create the Ramos' article and List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain and nominated them for FL and GA. But both were deleted after few time. I nominated it for AfD Dr Salvus 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bukayo Saka's position

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I made this edit in Bukayo Saka, since "left midfielder" as a position description is, at the very least, very incomplete and possibly incorrect.

Mattythewhite correctly pointed out to me that Worldfootball.net lists him as left midfielder and left back. I'd argue this is incorrect (or just outdated information based on his usage before this season).
If we're being picky, "left midfielder" isn't really a position that exists in today's football at the highest level. Saka has never played on a team that plays the 4-4-2. Instead, he's played a wide position in a 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or 3-4-2-1, or in central midfield. I realize this is all WP:OR and reasonable people can disagree on the definition of "left midfielder" so I won't die on this hill. I will say that it's not particularly helpful to readers to use the term to describe the left attacking position in a 5-man midfield or a 3-man front.
More importantly though, Mikel Arteta made a conscious decision to move him to the right, which is where he was most used. England lists him as a forward and even the aforementioned Worldfootball.net link lists him as a forward.
For what it's worth, WhoScored says he started 19 matches at AMR.

Given the evidence (and I think we have WP:RS to support this), listing him as an "attacking midfielder/left back" is preferable to "left midfielder/left back", which is based, as far as I can tell, on a single, unsigned source. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The position in the infobox should be as "generic" as possible. If someone exclusively plays as a left midfielder, then it's ok to just indicate "Left midfielder" in the infobox. However, someone who plays as a LM/LW/CAM/CF is, in my eyes, a "Forward". The different nuances of Saka's positions can be written in prose (in the lead and/or "style of play" section). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, "forward" is fine, I think there's enough sourcing for "winger", and "attacking midfielder" might work, but "left midfielder" is oddly specific for a player who never plays as a left midfielder. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

seems like you could just put "winger". Saying left back from 1 game in his entire career seems like an "eh."Muur (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on reliable sources, an apt description in the infobox/lede would "Left back, winger" or "Left back, midfielder" or similar, and then specifics could should be expanded in a 'Playing style' section. Giant Snowman 20:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates national football team

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before I stray into 3RR territory,

There is a user on the UAE page that continues to revert changes made by myself and @Badass Flare: to bring the page into line with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams template. Could an administrator either put a protection on the page or could others please voice their opinion on the matter either way so we can come to a resolution?

a) Special:Permalink/1027033969

b) Special:Permalink/1027034117

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, you have all breached 3RR, and you are all lucky not to have been blocked. Take it to the article talk page please. Giant Snowman 20:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Career stats MOS - parent club rows

Latest comment: 3 years ago186 comments17 people in discussion

@Rupert1904: has edit warred (conduct issues raised separately at ANI) to remove the Chelsea parent club parent rows in the career stats table at Ike Ugbo, on the basis that he made no appearances in those seasons as he was out on loan. I pointed him to the MOS (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics) which clearly shows that parent club rows remain in the career stats table, even if there were 0 apps. That is to show who he was on loan from, and to reflect/provide a complete career history (otherwise there would be significant and confusing gaps for players who have spent different times out on loan). The MOS is widely used, common sense, and should be followed. Rupert thinks we can ignore it. What are people's views? Giant Snowman 16:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Examples why I think the parent clubs should remain even if they have 0 apps:

A player plays for Team A. He then signs for Team B but makes no first-team appearances, and goes out on loan at Team C. If you removed the parent club entries (so no Team B), it would look like he was on loan at Team C from Team A; or

A player spends 5 years at Team A; then signs for Team B for 5 years but makes no senior appearances; and then moves to Team C. If you removed Team B on the basis that he had 0 apps there would be a huge and confusing gap. Giant Snowman 16:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No. As the MOS clearly states, it is a recommendation and is subject to change and should not be followed word for word. You think it's gospel that needs to be followed blindly and is not open to change or improvement BUT the MOS says it is open to change. On Ike Ugbo you insist on putting in blank rows into his career stats table for the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 seasons with parent club Chelsea. This is wrong and inaccurate for so many reasons. He has never been registered or given a number with the senior squad. So he has never been included in the squad list for ANY competition during those four seasons. He has been sent on loan to other clubs before season starts so it is factually inaccurate to include these seasons with Chelsea in a stats table because that would suggest that he was in a lineup or could have featured for the club during that season which is not true. Then when I ask why you won't fix this supposed MOS problem on other player articles you refuse to answer the question because you think you're above me. You then tried to start a discussion about this on my talk page and you brought in another editor into said discussion but they sided with my argument and not yours so now you're all upset. And lastly, you have a pattern of following my edits and reverting me and you even admitted to having my talk page on your watch list. That is incredibly weird and not appropriate. You need to stop! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove my talk page post here? You cannot pick and choose which arts of the MOS you simply with; that way anarchy lays. Giant Snowman 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything and you are really grasping at straws by suggesting that editing wikipedia is akin to anarchy. This is an encyclopedia that I thought we were both trying to improve. This isn't global politics. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That diff clearly shows you removing my post, and respectfully, you clearly don't know what is meant by "anarchy" here. Lawlessness. That is what happens when editors decide what parts of MOS they do and not not like, and what they will and will not follow. Your comment that "oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed" is absolute nonsense. Giant Snowman 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say "oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed"? I said it should not be followed verbatim. Which the MOS clearly says it should NOT be followed verbatim and that it is subject to change. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So when are we supposed to follow MOS, when are we supposed to ignore it, and how do we decide what bits to ignore/follow? Giant Snowman 16:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Rupert's erasing of GiantSnowman's comment, I think it was done by mistake (maybe an edit conflict?) as it doesn't seem to change Rupert's case. Regarding the MOS, as per WP:IAR and per the MOS's wording This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, the MOS isn't an iron law. When are we supposed to ignore it? When we think it betters the encyclopedia and the article. So in this case Rupert thinks that not including the parent club is a better representation. GiantSnowman thinks otherwise. And that is what the discussion is about. --SuperJew (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It indeed was. Thank you, @SuperJew:.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The points that Rupert is making are very important here. If a player is not registered to play for a club in any competitions, then it is not possible for them to have any stats. It is relatively simple these days to find squad lists of registered players on competition websites. If indeed a player was not eligible to make any appearances in a particular season, then it makes no sense to have the row in the table. However, if they were eligible to play in only one competition but did not make an appearance, that is enough to justify including the row. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the point is this - was a player contracted to the club and considered by us to be a first team player? How else will you get around the issues in the examples I listed initially? What about players who played before the advent of registration lists being available online? Giant Snowman 16:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ike Ugbo is not a first team player at Chelsea. That is exactly our point. Now three different editors have told you this.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

He is considered a senior player, and the career stats table reflects the career. You have not (because you are unable to?) explained how to get around the issues in the examples I listed initially. Giant Snowman 16:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rothmans/Sky Sports/Football Yearbooks have the squad lists going back to the 1970s. Sufficient sources exist with this information. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

He is NOT considered a senior player. He has never been promoted to the senior squad, never been given a number, never been registered in any competition, and never made an appearance or the substitute's bench. If a player played before the advent of registration lists 60 plus years ago then we will do our best to make sure what we have on their article is factually accurate. But now that we do have registration lists you want us to just ignore it because players before didn't have that? It makes no sense and disregards facts and sourced edits. And if you are going to bring up examples, why didn't you answer any of my original questions on the discussion in my talk page then? I listed off so many players and you said you didn't need to because you're better than me. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's considered a senior player. Why would Chelsea even bother to register him for any competitions if he's spent the last four years out on loan? If that's the only technicality we're using to determine whether to list his parent club in the stats table, I think it's kinda spurious. Leaving out the parent club would make the article look like we fucked up. – Pee Jay 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the career statistics table needs to reflect from which club the player is on loan from etc. We have that in the infobox and in the prose. --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for somebody to explain how to get around the issues in the examples I listed initially... Giant Snowman 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain why you haven't added rows into the examples that I listed initially.... Rupert1904 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I don't have the time or inclination to edit every single article that we have about footballers...and I did you would just revert me per POINT, wouldn't you? Giant Snowman 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert that we don't need parent club rows for every single year a player was out on loan. Spike 'em (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. And how do we get around the issues in the examples I listed initially? Giant Snowman 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. If we don't include the parent club, all we see is a player listed as being on loan, but how is the reader supposed to know who they were on loan from? – Pee Jay 17:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing 5 rows of zeros to me is unnecessary, but not having the parent club is also an issue, given that it would appear as if a player was contracted to a previous club. However, I don't see the need to put a row of zeros especially when the player is gone on a full year loan and never had the chance to make an appearance. The zeros also could be considered misleading as if he was available to play in those competitions (versus the fact that the team was, but he was not) - this was discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_139#Career_Stats_Table_-_midseason_transfer_-_missed_competition without a firm consensus established. Personally, one method that could work is a "home row" so to speak, where you list the first (and any years the player made appearances/available for appearances), but just omit the full-year loan years for Chelsea (apart from the first year). This could establish that the player was on loan from Chelsea, but avoid excess redundant space. Maybe something like this? RedPatch (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO the career stats table is to show the games played (and goals scored) in all competitions, not to show the history of transfers. Therefore we can list only the rows in which he actually played (or was elegible to play) (much as Soccerway does btw). how is the reader supposed to know who they were on loan from? By reading the infobox and the prose of the article. This table is also barely legible to understand that the parent club is Chelsea and then the loan club is XYZ. --SuperJew (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Going one step further I don't even think the term "(loan)" is neccessary in the career stats table. --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway shows Chelsea rows though - albeit it for the U23 team - as does Soccerbase ... Giant Snowman 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The U23 team is not the senior team (I would have no problem having an U23 row, but that should be after discussion since AFAIK the consensus is not to add youth apperances, even if in a league), and also it's not every season. --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And we could also add a note at the bottom of the stats table saying he has been on loan from Chelsea. As I and others have said, it is just so misleading and actually factually incorrect for Ugbo in particular since he has never been registered with the Chelsea senior side in any competition as he’s never been “promoted” to the senior side from their U21s rather he has just gone on loan to senior sides outside of Chelsea. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally believe we shouldn't have "(loan)" in the table. And if we do, we could just simply write "(on loan from Chelsea)". Or, (loan)^[a]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Rupert that we don't need parent club rows for every single year a player was out on loan. If a player never was in the squad, it makes no sense to suggest that. The career statistics table's purpose is to show the appearances a player has made. Its purpose is not to display when exactly a players joined or left a club or which club loaned him where and when. As SuperJew already wrote, all that information is covered in the infobox and, in a more detailed manner, in the storyline. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, we do not need to list the rows where he could not make an app. A simple note like above would do the trick. Kante4 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any arguments here to change the MOS other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of the arguments stack up. 'Just look at the prose'? Well no, the stats table is separate to that - because if one simply duplicates the other, why have both? 'Remove loan status'? Bizarre. Why not do the same for the infobox? Why would you add 'loan' in notes rather than keep it as we have displayed it for years, without issue? For the specific Ugbo article, the infobox has his senior Chelsea career starting in 2017, but that is not reflected by the stats box. Why the discrepancy? Giant Snowman 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: (edit conflict) The arguments are A) It's unneccesary B) The career stats table is to record stats of the career --> therefore we should not include a row for a club the player didn't play for during the season and was not eligible to play for C) The "issue" of the parent club is a non-issue and can be solved easily by a) the reader getting the information from the infobox/prose of the article as that is not the objective of the career stats table, b) add to the "(loan)" bracket "(loan from [parent club])", or c) add a simple note. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(also side note) The MoS you linked does not mention this situation where the player didn't make any appearances for the parent club, so there is no stable consensus base on this. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal - it's not unnecessary, as myself and PeeJay have explained it shows who he was on loan from, and it presents a complete picture of the career. What if a player spends 2 years with the first team, 3 years on loan or in the Reserves (either way making 0 appearances), and then back in the first team. Are you going to show a 3 year gap?! etc... He was a Chelsea player that season, so we should display his Chelsea stats, even if they are 0. It's clearly not a 'non issue' given this has kicked off and I have had to raise Rupert's conduct at ANI. PS the MOS does support my position - see the 2010–11 season where there are 0 apps for parent club (as out on loan) but still shown in the stats table, as is 2011–12 season with 0 apps. Giant Snowman 19:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem of showing a 3 year gap - if the player wasn't eligible to play for 3 years since he was in reserves. If a player was out of contract for 3 years and then returned, we'd have a 3 year gap in the stats. And in this case it's not a gap - it's stats when he is on loan somewhere else. What if a player left team A, joined team B for 3 years and returned to team A, that would look the same situation - the career stats table records the stats played for which club in which season, not the contract status of the player.

The point editors have raised above is exactly that he wasn't a senior Chelsea player that season.

I apologise if it sounded I was demeaning the argument. I meant that it isn't an issue to solve it - via expanded bracket or via a note, which both look better and are less confusing. Regarding your and Rupert's conduct, that discussion should continue at ANI and not here - here we are discussing the content issue.

Apologies regarding the MoS - I misread the stats of the loan as of the parent club. Anyways, it's hard to tell if this theoretical player in the MoS was a similar case to Ugbo's or if it was a different case, such as signed a senior contract with "Template United", was in the matchday squad on the bench for a month, then loaned out to "Wiki City" where he played 15 games and then returned to "Template United" injured until a few months into the 2011-12 season, when he returned to the matchday squad for 3 weeks when he sat on the bench and then transferred to "Template Rangers". I can make up another few scenarios which can match this table displayed in the MoS, and I don't have any info to support or contradict since in this case there is no prose and the infobox doesn't match the table. This I think further supports my point that to get the "full picture" a reader has to read beyond the career stats table, which isn't intended to give all the picture with all the contract status and history points. --SuperJew (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But...as MA says below...we consider him a senior player because he makes his senior debut, even if was at another club, and the infobox reflects that - so the career stats table should as well. The MOS is clear. I am concerned that people are simply picking & choosing what part of the MOS they personally like/don't like... when the MOS says "we are flexible" what it means is "not every section has to be set out this way or included". It does not mean "ignore the career stats table layout because you don't like it or find it useful". Giant Snowman 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Going by the story I wrote above, the MoS is not clear. It is at best ambiguious. I cannot tell only from the career stats table if the example player is as my story above or if it's any of other number of stories which can fit the stats appearing there. And the fact that a player made a senior appearance for a different club (especially in a different and lower league), does not automatically make him senior-contracted at the parent club. --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the MOS is clear - if a player is 'senior' in the infobox then we include those stats in the career stats, even if they are 0, even if they are on loan at a different club that season. Giant Snowman 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You're reading it as you want to read it, and completely ignoring that it can be read in other ways (therefore ambiguious). --SuperJew (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, there's one way of reading it, and there was one way of editing for years until Rupert popped up and deciding to go on his little edit war spree... `Giant Snowman

Not true, GS. The "Career statistics" section of footballer articles is one of the areas I edit most and in my experience a majority of editors treats the issue the way Rupert has. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My experience is clearly different to yours. I'm not saying either one is right, but mine follows the MOS and has been like that for years. Are you saying that people ignoring or being ignorant of this aspect of the MOS is fine? Giant Snowman 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with GS on this. Neither is ideal but to me, it looks less ridiculous to have rows of zeros than not showing the parent club. Also, if Ugbo obviously isn't a senior Chelsea player (as some have suggested), then can someone please explain to me when someone is/isn't a senior player. (Side note: this reminds me of the discussion of the youth career in the infobox, in that people are claiming that the distinction between being a youth and senior player is obvious, but without having any coherent way of defining it) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: A player is a senior player when he signs a senior contract. If for example a player plays 2 minutes for the senior team because half the regular squad is unavailable, and then returns to playing youth football for another 2-3 seasons, doesn't mean that his youth career ended the minute he played for the senior team. Regardless, for the stats career table the point, as was expanded above is if the player was available for selection for that team in that season - so in this case he wasn't even registered on the senior squad, and therefore not eligible for selection for games, so no reason to have a row for that club for that season. --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think Ugbo is on a youth contract, being nearly 23 and having spent 4 years out on loan at numerous clubs? Read his Chelsea profile. Giant Snowman 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anything about Ugbo's contract. As I said it is irrelevant anyways. The important point is if he was eligible to play in the senior team's games. As he wasn't registered with the senior squad, he wasn't. --SuperJew (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But he was a senior player? That's all that matters. Giant Snowman 10:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

On a different direction here, why is the solution of having a note (via note format or in brackets) a bad compromise in this situation? --SuperJew (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it is a poor solution to a non-existent problem. Why have a stats table at all, why not simply add notes next to club entries in the infobox to explain other appearances? Giant Snowman 10:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a compromise I could live with. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a compromise at all. Giant Snowman 10:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there is more than a page of discussion with views on either side, it evidently is an issue. One side of the argument wants to keep empty rows of parent club to prevent confusion (which might arise in cases that it looks like the club is loaned from the wrong club or it will look like unexplained gaps in the career), while the other side of the argument doesn't want the empty rows as they are unneccesary and not correct factually as the player wasn't avilable for the senior team selection in that season. This compromise of the notes fulfills side A's request to prevent confusion (as the note clearly will state from which club the player is on loan) and fulfills side B's request by not having the empty rows. So it is a compromise. In the end, we come to the talk page to discuss and in the end compromise if there are opposing viewpoints (whether by having a midway solution or by one side conceding that the consensus is with the other side). It is a shame that it doesn't feel here that there is flexibility for any compromisation. --SuperJew (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(BTW having all the stats in the infobox is not a bad idea IMO. Having a season-by-season breakdown of stats isn't necessary on Wikipedia. But that's a different discussion anyways and irrelevant to here.) --SuperJew (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No; there are two aspects to keeping the rows in as per the MOS - present a full career picture, and prevent confusion re:loans. The 'note' compromise barely deals with one of those aspects. And having all the stats in the infobox is a bad idea, given the lack of sources regarding cup games for older players, as we discuss every time somebody suggests it. Giant Snowman 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating it's a "non-existent problem" seems a bit tone-deaf considering there are at least four people in this very discussion only who disagree with you, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but there are others who agree with me and the MOS. So what's your point? Giant Snowman 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that repeating that you don't consider the issue a problem doesn't help us reach us a compromise or a consensus. You have cited arguments why you don't consider it a problem, others have cited arguments why they do and both sides don't seem have been able to convince the other side, so we need start thinking about a compromise.Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But I cannot see how there can be a compromise reached while people are still advocating for gaps (and confusing ones at that, regardless of any 'notes' added) in the stats table. Giant Snowman 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the parent club data should be included whether they played a game or not.--Echetus Xe 11:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GS and co. Basically what we are talking about here is an issue with the way to present data in a table format. We don't have any such issue presenting this info in infobox because of the accepted principle indicating a player is appearing on loan with the indentation.

I would argue having another table that does not reflect the infobox has two critical issues:

1. Any user of wikipedia will want to know what appearances the player has made. The infobox shows only league apperances. There is now a gap in knowledge traditionally filled by the table of career statistics.

2. Users are likely to see the absence of any career records as an omission rather than a clarification. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There can definitely be no compromise if you continue to dismiss any suggestions out of hand. I find the tables with multiple rows of 0s, often remote from the same year out on loan as both confusing and uninformative. Spike 'em (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and we can't have multiple rows of 0s when a player was never registered by the club to play in the competitions, which is the case here, as it gives the impression that they were eligible to play, when they weren't. As already mentioned above, Soccerway only has entries in the database for the youth teams and not the senior team, which backs up that he hasn't been anywhere near the senior team. The only possible compromises to my mind are either to have the footnotes as already proposed above, or to have rows of em dashes, to denote that he was ineligible for all of the competitions during those seasons, as we already do when a player is ineligible for some competitions, per the MOS. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Then here's a compromise - include the rows, but replace the 0s with dashes and add a note saying 'player was not eligible for competitions this season because of X, Y or Z' or similar. That should please both sides, will it not? Giant Snowman 14:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support that, but the notes would need to be individually sourced. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Any other comments from anyone before I ping all participants for their views on the new format? Giant Snowman 15:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
Club	Season	Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
From 2017 to 2021 Chelsea was the parent club. (There are simple solutions).
Barnsley (loan)	2017–18	Championship	16	1	0	0	2	1	—		18	2
Milton Keynes Dons (loan)	2017–18	League One	15	2	2	0	0	0	—		17	2
Scunthorpe United (loan)	2018–19	League One	15	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	16	1
Roda JC (loan)	2019–20	Eerste Divisie	28	13	1	0	—		—		29	13
Cercle Brugge (loan)	2020–21	Belgian First Division A	31	15	2	1	—		—		33	16
Career total			105	32	6	1	2	1	0	0	113	34

Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not clear (as it looks the same as the header), and what happens if he plays for the Chelsea first team next season, what about when players go out on loan part way through a career etc. etc. Giant Snowman 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my edit above earlier, If we're going to bracket non-appearing seasons then this would be the only valid solution imho. Whether it's 0's or - is a matter of stylistic choice.

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
Club	Season	Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Chelsea	2017–21	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	—		0	0
Barnsley (loan)	2017–18	Championship	16	1	0	0	2	1	—		18	2
Milton Keynes Dons (loan)	2017–18	League One	15	2	2	0	0	0	—		17	2
Scunthorpe United (loan)	2018–19	League One	15	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	16	1
Roda JC (loan)	2019–20	Eerste Divisie	28	13	1	0	—		—		29	13
Cercle Brugge (loan)	2020–21	Belgian First Division A	31	15	2	1	—		—		33	16
Career total			105	32	6	1	2	1	0	0	113	34

At least this way you are giving the same information as you used to, just condensed. Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea and looks really good and not confusing. Kante4 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 Robby.is.on (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ye, that can work, because a lot of loan players don't get many games for their top club. There is a however, when do you decide what seasons you're going to split off. For for seasons which are pure away loans, could work. Govvy (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be completely opposed to this solution, though if anything it should be 2017–2021 per MOS:DATERANGE. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (although I have played literally no part in this discussion) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult (honestly!) but what does one line really save over say 2 or 3 or 5? Especially if the parent club changes division... Giant Snowman 19:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I like this. What if a player goes out on loan in 2017... returns partway through the 2017–18 season, plays a League Cup game, goes out on loan for 2018 and the whole 2018–19 season and then plays 1 game in the League Cup in the 2019–20 season before going back on loan? Are we going to pretend the 2018–19 season doesn't exist for Chelsea? What if he plays 1 League Cup game for Chelsea in 2017–18, goes out on loan end of 2017, returns before 2018, and then never plays again on loan until 2020–21? Are we ignoring 2018–19 and 2019–20? I don't know, I just don't think it would look the best. This is better than the Govvy table though. I personally think it isn't a problem adding the Chelsea seasons for Ugbo. It isn't his or our fault that Chelsea keeps loaning him and other players out a billion times. The grand, grand majority of players are loaned out a couple times like youngsters James Olayinka and senior guys like Konstantinos Mavropanos and honestly, having Arsenal listed for 2020–21 looks fine and is accurate to me. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GS it doesn't save much, and I also don't think the current system is an issue for the very few players it affects (certainly to this extent). @AF700 if is really only applicable in this situation, and that's kind of the point. This is one of 1 in 500,000 player situation. All other players we have resolved one way or another, and would continue to resolve - this is just a solution here, now, for this player, and potentially other situations where GS and Rupert meet each other. Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would just put the first season (2017-18) and then the loans. The first season would basically provide the parent club (and for a new transfer, basically imply that he was purchased for that season, then loaned out immediately). That also solves the problem of a player returning in subsequent seasons and playing portions of a season here or there. It's how it's done in the John Bostock and Martin_Ødegaard articles. Just omit the seasons they weren't with the first club because they were on loan. I also noticed this discussion was had three years ago with the same lack of consensus Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_118#Parent_clubs_in_career_stats_tables. RedPatch (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am okay with this approach as well, @RedPatch:, or the in-line note as others have suggested. My issue with Ike Ugbo, in particular, and as agreed to by other editors, is that Ugbo has never been given a senior squad number at Chelsea and he has never been registered with the senior squad in any competition whatsoever. He has only played for the Chelsea U18s, U19s and U21s. Further, all of his loans have been full season loans or in the case of the 2017–18 season, his loan was cut short with Barnsley and then the very next day, he was immediately loaned out to MK Dons. And based on his profile at the Chelsea website, he has never even been "promoted" to their senior side. Therefore to me, it's not only an extreme stance and over aggressive interpretation of the MOS to add in all of these blank stat lines with the Chelsea senior team from 2017 through to 2021 but also factually inaccurate and very confusing. He has never had an opportunity to represent the Chelsea senior side and having all of these blank stat lines suggests otherwise and presents a misleading narrative. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is one entry OK but 2/3 not? Why is including '0' apps "misleading" but removing all mention of the parent club not? Giant Snowman 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It definitely does make it clearer, especially for serial loanees like Michael Hector, Joel Campbell, David Button, Samuele Longo, Matej Delač, Francesco Forte. Their stats section would look terrible with 7-10 years of zeros and cause confusion beacuse its so messy IMO. With that said, it's not directly tied to this discussion, but I don't really like the non-chronological nature that career stats tables caused by loans because of the need to keep the same club together. For example, a player plays for Team A from 2010-2020, but in 2011/12 and 2014/15 he goes on loan to Team B and Team C. There would be 10 rows from 2010-2020 for Team A, then we go back in time 8 years to show Team B up three years to show Team C, then jump forward 5 years to show his next club Team D. That's where notes, etc, could help by actually making career stats chronological. RedPatch (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is misleading because Ugbo is not and never has been registered with the senior club so to have 4 blank lines saying he was with the senior team is factually wrong. And I think everyone has consented and agreed to not remove all mentions of the parent club, instead include the first season they are signed (which is not relevant to Ugbo since he is a product of their youth team) or an in-line note. And I would say for Ugbo, we should even say it is a loan from Chelsea U23s since that was the last Chelsea team he was registered for. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Something looking "terrible" is immaterial. There's plenty of things that look ugly here in my view, but they are useful so I get over it. If Ugbo has never been a senior player for Chelsea (despite the infobox saying he is, and despite that largely being an irrelevance), why display one season? Surely none would be better? If you are going to display that, why not just have everything as we already do? And no, players do not get loaned out from the underage sections of a club (in England at least). Giant Snowman 15:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

None is probably better, but displaying one was an idea for potential compromise as opposed to showing 5+ rows of zeros/dashes. Sure many things look terrible, but provide use, but it they can be made to look better while still showing the use, that's even better. I don't see how 5+ rows of zeros when the player was ineligible for selection demonstrates any positive utility. RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Chelsea should be on there for each season contracted that he was out on loan. The player in question is even stated to have signed a professional contract in 2015. he's not a youth player.Muur (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between turning professional and being registered by the club to play in professional competitions. The latter is the issue that we are discussing. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

but... you don't have to register U21 players? U21 players don't count under registration rules for domestic competitions. chelsea could play a 4 year old in their next match if they wanted to. Like, you can see here that man city for example didn't list Phil Foden in their 25 man squad because he's U21, but he played 50 times anyway. instead, he's listed in their U21 list. Ugbo is 22, so wasn't registered for the 20/21 Chelsea squad list but before that he as included in their U21 list. here is the 19/20 squad list. Ugbo is listed within Chelsea's U21 players. the only season where he wasn't actually eligle to play for Chelsea is the 20/21 season.Muur (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So why not say Ugbo is a Chelsea U21 or U23 player in infobox or stats table? Rupert1904 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Because we do not treat English youth teams as senior teams, unsurprisingly. Giant Snowman 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well @GiantSnowman:, it's surprising that you want to include him in the senior team when he has not been included by Chelsea. Also @Muur:, going by the Premier League squad link you sent above, why did we not then include all the U21 players (Contract and Scholars) into the current squad list for Chelsea in their 2019–20 article or in the main Chelsea F.C. article? Rupert1904 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: A hypothetical question here as it could happen given Chelsea's recent history with loaning players: if Ugbo was to stay at Chelsea until he is say 26 or 27 (so older than not counting towards the EPL under age 21 registration rule) but be loaned out to different clubs for the entirety of that spell to a new club every season and never be registered for Chelsea in any competition, how would you want that showing in his stats table? Would you want to keep the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 seasons with Chelsea showing up as blank even though he was on loans with other clubs those entire campaigns but then remove stat lines for 2021–22, 2022–23, 2023–24, 2024–25 with Chelsea because he was over 21 years old and not registered? Rupert1904 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean you were free to include all the chelsea youth players it'd get a bit overkill doing so I'd say. and yes if hes there till 27 youd list every season.Muur (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing/muddline infobox, stats table, and squad listings. As you have been told by somebody else, the infobox treats him as a senior player, and the career stats table should reflect that. Giant Snowman 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are actually confusing/muddling the infobox and stats table GiantSnowman. The infobox shows the clubs based on contractual status - so it shows the clubs the player was signed for and that way we have parent clubs and loan clubs are indented. The stats table is to show with which club the player was playing and their stats for that club, and therefore shouldn't show a club he wasn't playing with, such as Chelsea in this case as the player was away from Chelsea on loan at other clubs. Any confusion over "who's the parent club" can be cleared by looking at the infobox/prose, and/or having a note via note format or in the bracket to extend to (loan from [PARENT]). --SuperJew (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

But people have suggested removing rows when a player was contracted to play for a club but making no appearances (such as a backup goalkeeper). How is that representative of the 'club the player was playing and their stats for that club'? Ugbo was a Chelsea player 2017 onwards, how is having no entry for them in the career stats showing the 'club the player was playing and their stats for that club'? Giant Snowman 21:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No one was saying anything about backup goalkeepers. Where are you getting this from? The argument was that if the player isn't playing for the parent club for that season, as they are out on loan with a different club, then there is no reason to have a stats row for the parent club. Same as during the time the player is out on loan we list the current club in the infobox as the loan club and we don't have the player listed in the parent's club squad navbox. --SuperJew (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is conflation to do with my point. There are dozens of players who are with the senior team for years and never make appearances, but are available for selection and make various loans to and from clubs. The entire crux of the argument is that Ike Ugbo at all times has not been available so therefore shouldn't have a line because he can't have played for Chelsea - but those lines of of the box are not there to indicate whether a player was eligible for selection, or selected and never appeared - they are there to record appearances for their senior team. Which he made 0 of. As many players do. Making 0 appearances is just as relevant has making 1 appearance (Emmanuel Omoyinmi take a bow). If we start trying to do this "he was away for the whole season" business it is going to need a reliable source saying say because otherwise we are literally creating OR and SYNTH, and defining what "whole season" means and what doesn't count towards being available? Pre season? Post season? Friendlies? U23's? EFL Trophy? Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Re:backuo goalkeepers - actually, a player not making any appearances for a club in the middle of their career (such as a backup goalkeeper) has been discussed, with certain people saying in those circumstances the rows should be deleted. Do you disagree with that? This is what I mean - some editors say remove or replace them, but there is no clear consensus to do so and there is no consistency/agreement between those who want to change the MOS as to what it should become. Some would remove only parent rows when a player is out on loan, others who would remove every season where 0 apps made... Giant Snowman 12:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rupert It is misleading because Ugbo is not and never has been registered with the senior club so to have 4 blank lines saying he was with the senior team is factually wrong. this makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. We literally have an infobox saying exactly this very thing. Not with four blank lines, but with "2017-" and indicating Chelsea as the parent club. This has nothing to do at all with "registered with senior club", and as a table of data we do not stipulate anything like "must be registered" etc (and per Muur above, it would be redundant). Ike also made appearances for the Chelsea U23 team in the intervening periods between loans to 3 of the clubs again indicating a period where he was eligible to play for the senior team if selected. Koncorde (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Also in regards to the 20/21 season, Chelsea only listed 22 players in their 25 man squad so whilst they didn't list this over 21 player in their 25 man squad, they could still play him. He would just simply take the 23rd slot. so he *was* elibigble for this season. also the FA Cup and League Cup you don't even need to register anyone for the compeition, they just need to be contracted to the team. so even if he wasn't registered for their league campaign and they already had 25 players regsitered (but they didnt, they had 22), he wouldve been eligible for the fa cup and league cup (and efl trophy for chelsea U23)Muur (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: Well no they couldn't play him because he has been on a season-long loan to Cercle Brugge in Belgium since August 2020 and since Chelsea never recalled him that would have been impossible to play for both clubs this season. And as I said above, playing for Chelsea U21s or Chelsea U23s is very different than playing for Chelsea. @Koncorde: - I completely agree with you that it is a table of data. That's why I think it's misleading and inaccurate to include blank stat lines for a club he was not with and couldn't appear for. It's not data to include that. During the 2017–18 season, Ugbo was loaned to Barnsley on 17 July 2017. His loan was cut short on 3 January 2021 and on 4 January he went on loans to MK Dons with whom he stayed with through the end of the season. When could he have played for Chelsea that season? During the 2019–20 season, he joined Roda JC in Holland on 3 August 2019 and returned to Chelsea in June 2020. This represents another whole season where he could not make an appearance for Chelsea. During the 2020–21 season, Ugbo joined Cercle Brugge on 18 August 2020, has made over 30 appearances for them this season, and is still contractually tied to Cercle Brugge until 30 June 2021. When could he have appeared for Chelsea during the 2020–21 season? If we all agree that this is a table of data, then these seasons where it would have been physically and contractually impossible for Ugbo to appear for Chelsea, then they should not be included. Rupert1904 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. If you want to indicate instead rows in the table of "Chelsea U23" instead of "Chelsea" do it. But removing Chelsea entirely means that it is out of line with the infobox which does include this time period. We should not have dissenting data within an article from which we are either concealing information, or omitting information commonly reflected in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to find a compromise so that the parent club isn't removed entirely. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And I've already stated I would be fine with putting in ChelseaU23 to the stats table.Rupert1904 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In which case you would have even more blank rows than if you just put in Chelsea! (and would also be misleading given he was NOT on loan from Chelsea U23). What is it you actually want? Giant Snowman 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words - I did not say add more blank rows. I want a compromise and to improve the MOS for stats tables for Ugbo and other players like him. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And how is that done by adding loads of 'Chelsea U23' blank rows? Giant Snowman 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want loads of Chelsea U23 blank rows. Again please don't put words in my mouth.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't want loads of blank Chelsea rows, then you suggested replacing them with U23 rows instead - but the U23 rows would also be blank! If that is not what you mean please clarify. Giant Snowman 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I never suggested replacing them with more blank rows. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I want either one row or an-line note saying he was loan from Chelsea as I have said multiple times. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think he meant like this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with that if the player played in the EFL Trophy with the youth team. And I am fairly confident athat Ugbo has appeared in the EFL Trophy so that should be in his stats table but it was missing. But to me, to put blank Chelsea senior team rows is wrong for a whole host of reasons that I and others have noted above. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to find a compromise so that the parent club isn't removed entirely. no, we are trying to reflect the accurate state of affairs while ensuring that the information that is included in the table is internally consistent with the rest of the information we hold, and reflects reliable sources. Removing data from a table at the foot of the page while our infobox says different is incoherent.

It is already confusing enough that the infobox is limit to league appearance only - but to then suggest we omit entirely a players record of playing (or not playing, both are significant) for a team, means that the one place that a reader could go to see if a player has appeared in a cup match is gone... and the reader has no one way of knowing if this is in error, or intentional, or why it doesn't align with the infobox.

So, in conclusion, to the user base our only source of complete statistics is that table. Not appearing for a team is a statistic, just like not scoring in a match. We should be reflecting an accurate and complete career record - not removing seasons, and notes are in and of themselves less than ideal. Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He has no stats to make for Chelsea though as he was signed with different clubs making stats (appearances and goals) for them, so it's confusing to put double 2019–20 lines suggesting that he played for both Chelsea and Roda JC that season when in fact he only played for Roda JC. His profile on the official Premier League website doesn't include a bunch of blank stats suggesting he was with the Chelsea senior team all those years either, just that he was with the U21 team at the start of 2019–20 before his loan: https://www.premierleague.com/players/14593/Ike-Ugbo/overview. On the different end of the spectrum, @Koncorde:, is it not confusing on Arjen Robben's stats table to a casual user who sees the break when he retired with Bayern Munich after the 2018–19 season and then came back out of retirement to play for Groningen during the 2020–21 season? Do you want a blank 2019–20 row saying he was retired? Rupert1904 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The only person currently advocating for your position is - you. Consensus is against you. Giant Snowman 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Our table doesn't give to-from dates to indicate that he was there full season, part season etc. Tell me about Tony Warner? Do you know how many GK's have extended seasons of no games when second or third string? What about prolonged injuries?

Also using a Premier League website about whether a player may have appeared in any other competition is exactly the problem...

As for Arjen, the infobox is consistent with the table. We are internally consistent. Koncorde (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

GS, that is not true, many of the people discussing here have similar views to Rupert. Also the infobox is meant to reflect the content of the rest of the article, not drive how information is displayed in the it. Spike 'em (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is not true, several people, including myself, agree with Rupert's position. Also, bringing up keepers with zero appearances is not the same. The case in question has been made that players such as this only who were on loan who have zero appearances [u]because[/u] they were not with the team and thus unable to appear. Keepers or players who just never got subbed on should rightfully have zeros, because they were there just never got subbed on. Apples and oranges comparison. RedPatch (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is also not even close to being against Rupert. I quickly reviewed this discussion and noted 9 people on Rupert's side to remove years where the player was not available or put a note or something similar and 6 on the GS's side to keep the rows there. RedPatch (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Then using the Premier League website to prove your side of the argument shouldn't be used either as some people have done already. If a back-up goalkeeper is at the club then he should have 0s. If a goalkeeper or any player for that matter is in the squad, has a number, is practicing with the squad and appears on the bench but doesn't play, it should be included in their stats that they made 0 appearances or 1 or 2 in a cup game or whatever the case may be. Ike Ugbo is an entirely different case though. He was not at the at all club during this time for the entirety of the 2017–18, 2019–20 and 2020–21 seasons. This is the whole crux of the issue. To put all those rows in for Chelsea is not only misleading but it's inaccurate. We've proven by a number of reliable sources, including Chelsea's own website, that he wasn't with the club then as he was out on loan at other clubs during these seasons. There's not a way for him to have played for Chelsea during those seasons so we create a false narrative and record suggesting otherwise by keeping those rows in his stats table. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't, and have no interest in using a source about the Premier League to say if Ugbo played in any other competition. It's not a false narrative if your assertions are not based on reliable sources that we can verify.

So, to paint a picture for you:

2016/17 - Chelsea U23 appearances
2017/18 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, first loan terminates same day Chelsea play a match. U21 therefore elligible to play.
2018/19 - Chelsea U23 appearances, EFL Trophy, loan begins after Chelsea's season begins (2018 FA Community Shield on 8th August, 22 days before he went to Scunthorpe) and is one of "The six Chelsea youngsters called up to training ahead of Eintracht Frankfurt Europa League tie" in May 2019 and here travelling to the US for a post season match.
2019/20 - Aug 3rd to June 30th, friendlies are played 10th July to 3rd August. Here's him playing in one. I assume he was practicing / training before his loans? After? Between? Right? Or is training with your club not enough to be at the club?
2020/21 - Aug 18th to June 30th, Covid curtailed pre-season. Loaned out prior to even friendlies. But was he "practicing"?

Now tell me about Tony Warner. Was he ever on the bench. Ever at the club. Ever practicing etc? How about Michael Stensgaard, Stephen Pears, Jorgen Nielsen? How much research needs to be done to establish if your assertions are actually correct? Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spike 'em and RedPatch: you have clearly misread where I said "currently" advocating (given neither of you have commented recently?), and you'll also remember that WP:NOTAVOTE applies. Strength of argument is key - and there isn't any to change the MOS or its implementation. Giant Snowman 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well the definition of 'recently' is open for interpretation. I commented two days ago (recent in my view) and there was only one comment in this thread yesterday. The discussion then resumed today and I commented today. I also didn't see the need to just comment to repeat my points over and over. Yes, NOTAVOTE applies and strength of argument is key, but the problem with strength of argument is that people will naturally view comments in support of one's view as stronger than those opposed. For example, in this discussion, the reasons given to support the view to remove inapplicable rows seems more well-founded to me than the views to maintain the current status quo which to me mainly seem like the view is you can't remove them because that's what we do, but I recognize that others will see it differently. I don't feel it's right for someone who is 'involved' in the discussion to be the one decide which arguments are "strong arguments" and which are without merit because bias is inherent. RedPatch (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GiantSnowman: Keeping on saying that your argument is true and the other is wrong doesn't make it so. As mentioned above, there is currently no consensus with both editors and arguments on both sides. Your claim that the side you are advocating is backed by the MoS is wrong, as the MoS is ambiguious as I said above. And the fact that some editors haven't said the same thing again and again also today and yesterday doesn't mean they aren't "currently advocating" their side. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the MOS is NOT ambiguous. Saying it is doesn't make it true! Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't commented recently because yet again you are bludgeoning the process. I have seen many good ideas, but you chose to ignore them or say they are not relevant. Something looking terrible is a good reason to change, not a case of I don't like it. People who want change seem open to fine tuning things, you just want to reject it forno good reason other than "we've always done it this way" Spike 'em (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What good ideas? The only workable compromise is the dash idea. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So the argument/claim that "Ugbo was not eligible/registered" has been shown to be false. So what are actual arguments against including empty rows for parents club, in compliance with the MOS, beyond 'I don't like it' or 'it looks bad'? Unless anything new is raised, I think there is clear support here for their inclusion, and certainly no consensus to change the MOS (meaning the rows should be re-insterted at Ugbo's article). Giant Snowman 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, why is the MOS just suggested? Why is that not the standard for all articles? Definitely feels like it should for players with certain conditions applied. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Giant Snowman 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, adding Chelsea u23s instead of just chelsea is simply factually incorrect as shown above, but there are many scenarios like this where it simply wouldn't work, e.g. Jamal Blackman or Lewis Baker, who despite being 27 and 26 respectively, and both having spent their whole careers at Chelsea, have made 1 appearance for the club between them. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Another good point as to why that suggested change won't work. Giant Snowman 19:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

However, the referenced articles of Jamal Blackman and Lewis Baker are exactly what many of the editors advocating for change are in favour of. Only add the pertinent rows for the parent club as is done in those two. For a player like Ugbo, who was never registered and available for the first team, the compromise was suggested to add one row for first year/range of years, so that it could be structured just like Blackman/Baker. If it 'works' in those articles, then the suggested change, clearly can work. RedPatch (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: It doesn't really 'work' per se, as it is very confusing that Chelsea section stops arbitrarily at 2016 (though these edge cases are ones where the rows of zeroes would look a bit ridiculous). I would support just having a date range here otherwise the table would just be unwieldily large. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: How do these cases differ from Ugbo's case - in Ugbo's case adding rows of zeroes would double the size of the table. But anyway it seems that you agree on the principal being discussed here. --SuperJew (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: if they have failed to make any appearances, I have no preference between the two. Omitting the rows entirely, however, is nonsense. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is to make it look like this, which IMO works well. While Chelsea ends at 2017, the loans below signify that they continue under Chelsea's parentage, but the player just wasn't available for Chelsea RedPatch (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

something like this would work better IMO, as I find the Chelsea stats cutting off at 2018 to be rather confusing. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That's form is good with me as well. RedPatch (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Same. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

One row representing four seasons is not ideal. What was wrong with the dash idea suggested? Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dashes or not, more than one line indicating the parent club is a waste of space and a source for confusion if a player was loaned out for entire seasons. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also like Microwave Anarchist's suggestion. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The box says "season". that is going to make people think 2017-2021 was one entire season. Just have them with dashes for the 20/21 and 0s for the rest.Muur (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, per my investigations here it wouldn't be accurate. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Koncorde: - you are absolutely right about making EFL Trophy appearances with the U23 side. Those appearances should have been included in his career stats table. No one is arguing against that. But those were not in his stats table before - it was just blank rows for the Chelsea first team. And him training with the senior side in pre-season and appearing in pre-season friendlies means absolutely nothing. That's not an official appearance by anyone recording stats - whether it be here on Wikipedia, the Chelsea website, Soccerway, UEFA, the FA, FIFA, you name it. You can't compare that to appearing in a season. Should we include pre-season goals in stats tables now in the other section? And should we say that any player who is without a club but who trains with a club to regain match fitness or whatever the case is that they are with the club in their stats table? We're talking about official matches here and representing his stats accurately. And again, he wasn't registered for the Community Shield match and didn't sit on the bench so to say he could have made an appearance is really embellishing it. We are sticklers for sources when it comes to a player's honours, especially in regards to cup finals or a super cup like the Community Shield, so we should use that same yard stick for stats. Also, we can do the research on Ike Ugbo. It's out there in reliable sources that he's not at Chelsea so because we might not have reliable sources for some players in the history of the game, does that mean we can't make articles better for the players we do have that information on? Rupert1904 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The line in the table has nothing to do with official matches. It is to do with the club they are contracted to at any time and the appearances that they make for the club, be that 0 or 1. He officially and accurately made 0 appearances for Chelsea last season and this season. Your argument is that he wasn't available, various claims about being registered or eligible etc. This has been demonstrated to be incorrect. The only one still with a leg to stand on is this season. It doesn't matter if he did appear in any games so long as he was there, and an option to be selected. As above, for both the Europa League (as he was U21) and Charity Shield he was available.

As for trainees with a team - are they contracted and eligible to play in fixtures? And this has nothing to do with honours.

And you haven't answered the question. I can literally drag through hundreds of players all in the same situation where you are saying we should strike their record without actually stipulating (per my reply to SuperJew above) The entire crux of the argument is that Ike Ugbo at all times has not been available so therefore shouldn't have a line because he can't have played for Chelsea - but those lines of of the box are not there to indicate whether a player was eligible for selection, or selected and never appeared - they are there to record appearances for their senior team. Which he made 0 of. As many players do. Making 0 appearances is just as relevant has making 1 appearance (Emmanuel Omoyinmi take a bow). If we start trying to do this "he was away for the whole season" business it is going to need a reliable source saying so because otherwise we are literally creating OR and SYNTH, and defining what "whole season" means and what doesn't count towards being available? Pre season? Post season? Friendlies? U23's? EFL Trophy? Koncorde (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The stats table has everything to do with official matches. Ugbo was loaned to Barnsley on 17 July 2017. His loan was cut short on 3 January 2018 and on 4 January he went on loan to MK Dons and was there until June 2018. Ugbo joined joined Roda JC on 3 August 2019 and he stayed in Holland for the whole 2019–20 season. Ugbo joined Cercle Brugge in August 2020 and has been in Belgium the entire 2020–21 season. It's not accurate to say he was there at Chelsea or was an otpion to be selected because he wasn't. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources and articles that say Ugbo's last two loans have been full season loans. It is out there in the universe, on the Chelsea website, on his wiki article. Plus his stats with those clubs proves that he was with those clubs for the entire season and wasn't recalled. We should be proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have played for Chelsea just as we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that players receive medals and for everything else in their article. And I could toss out different other examples all day to prove my point too. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, why is there no 2020–21 stat line for Petr Cech with Chelsea in his career stats table or a mention in his infobox? Rupert1904 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

that was pointed out before. his loan was ended the same day as one of chelseas games meaning he could've played in it if they wanted to. then they loaned him out a day later. the editor above showed there were matches in every season he was available to play in. as for cech... thats a different can of worms, and people have argued the entire season whether chelsea 20/21 should be listed. I'm the opinion of yes but it seems it was decided as no?. anyway, this is moslty an issue of chelsea with their loan army. as seen with Jamal Blackman theyre content to renew contracts forever and loan players out forever because teams give them loan fees to sign these guys. this ugbo guy could be at chelsea his entire career and be loaned out 15 times. chelsea are a special case with their dang loan army. I wonder if Blackman will spend the next 10 years at chelsea still...Muur (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify: when I mean it has nothing to do with official matches, I mean it isn't there solely to reflect when someone makes more than 0 appearances. By your own argument to do with him being registered / available to play, he didn't need to be registered, was available to play on several occasions, spent pre-season / post-season with the club, and ultimately made appearances in most of the seasons in question. You are left with, by my reckoning, this season - and even then he remained contracted to, with, and for Chelsea, and if any fixture had been held he would have been eligible (well, maybe not, depending on the the 22+ rule).

And no, you are the one making the claim. It is up to you to support what definition of "whole season" we are using. Our POV is that he is a Chelsea player. He should be listed as such. Making 0 appearances is a fact. We should be internally consistent by making sure our tables reflect the infobox. Koncorde (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If chelsea recalled him, which they didn't but they could've at any point, he would've been eligible even tho he's 22 years old (meaning he'd need to be registered to the 25 man squad to play) they could've played him as they had three left over spaces in their 25 man squad. if he returned and they played him he'd be slot 23. this only counts for players already contracted though, if he was a free agent and lets say signed in december he would would've had to wait till january. but, as he's a contracted chelsea player he could've played. only way he couldn't if if all 25 slots were taken... but they werent. at the least 20/21 should be listed but with dashed for every box instead of 0s.Muur (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As is consensus on this project we count official competitions. Pre-season? No. Post-season? No. Friendlies? No. U23's in EFL Trophy? We can include them, but under title of "Chelsea U23", not under senior team. If we want to include pre-season friendlies, we will have to list a row for each trialist who tries out. And we have the sources of when he left and returned from loan so again I don't see the issue. Soccerway shows as the way originally suggested here with no blank rows for Chelsea, while Soccerbase shows as was suggested here later with one zeroes line for Chelsea senior, so I don't see how either of these would be OR/SYNTH. If anything adding blank lines would be OR/SYNTH as there haven't been outside sources mentioned which show it that way. --SuperJew (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh? I am not suggesting we include any of those stats, nor does the MOS say we should. All I am and others are saying is that where a player's infobox has a senior club entry, the career stats table should reflect that, even if they made 0 appearances in that season (whether they were with the club or out on loan). Giant Snowman 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All of this is making me wonder what the hell we do with players who had an injury from the previous season and missed the entire current season? It never existed because he never even trained besides potential rehab? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the whole crux of the argument that the 5 blank rows should be included is because although he was never a Chelsea senior player, he was under a certain age seems pretty loose to me. Well according to that, he was eligible in 16/17, 15/16, etc since he was a youth player, so why not include blank zeros for those? What if he never went on loan to Barnsley, MK Dons, or Scunthorpe, played exclusively in the U# teams. Would he have rows for 17/18 or 18/19, you'd say no and would start his blank rows at 19/20. What if he never went on loan anywhere, ever, and only appeared for youth teams? Would he have 5 blank rows? Nope, he'd have no rows, not even a table at all. He has never been a Chelsea senior player and the only website that even lists him as one is Wikipedia, due to a technicality because of the infobox, where wikipedia requires a parent club in the senior section (I'm not going to get into the youth/senior years debate, that's a whole other can of worms and we know where I stand on that). The whole argument in favour of keeping the rows appears to me to be the arguments of: a) He didn't need to be registered because he was U22, but by that logic every U22 Chelsea academy player should get multiple "zero" rows because they were technically eligible as well. That is being consistent, but I doubt anyone will be in favour of that. They'll say it's different (he has senior stats at Barnsley so he has to have senior stats at Chelsea) but it's really not (a 20 year old can go to Europe and legally drink, but then they go to the US, they still can't legally drink even though they legally drank in Europe). Off-topic comparison, sure but it's technically comparing like-for-like ideas. b) The other main argument is I don't want to listen any proposal because this is the way I do it. The argument cites a recommended format of the MOS (which is allowed to be changed), which is not even a rule, also we also have an WP:IAR which literally says if something prevents you from improving, ignore it. Everyone here is trying to improve, but not being open to entertaining discussion is an 'I know best mentality'. Multiple examples of other players who use stats tables with omitted rows for when the player was out for the full season loan. Sure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but other stuff can be used as recommendations. RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Well said and I couldn't agree more. Goes back to my point that at this rate we could include every U21 and academy player in their current squad list which is crazy overkill and not really accurate/truthfu;. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If a table exists reflecting a players career it should reflect their career. If people have been omitting rows for other reasons then you've effectively created internal inconsistencies. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

there's no point adding seasons before he made his professional debut as that's overkill. an exception, perhaps, would be those who appeared on the bench but ended up making appearances. for example this season bolton had a few u21 players on the bench this season in the EFL Trophy, but they didnt actually play. they would have this season in their stats even tho their debut will happen not this season (or maybe never if their 20/21 efl trophy sub appearence are the only time they appear in bolton's 18). maybe even that would be over kill tho.Muur (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone who supports the inclusion of blank rows of Chelsea seniors to back it up with a reliable source. The other side of the argument has been backed up above with Soccerway and Soccerbase. Second point which is important to re-iterate if it was misunderstood: The career stats table doesn't have to mirror the infobox - they serve different functions and if they are showing the same thing, then one of them is redundant. --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I was replying to Koncorde's point above where they brought in pre-season/post-season etc. Not every comment on this section is in response to your points. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a case of mirroring - it is a case of being in agreement. If the infobox only shows league appearances, and a reader wants to know about other appearances can you explain how having rows excised helps? Look at that table for Ike Ugbo and tell me who is the parent club? From where has he been loaned each season? How would any reader looking at that table know that he has been a Chelsea player each and every season? Say Watford sign him and send him out on loan...?

A primary case in point right now is Gareth Bale who I can see is missing a line for this season for Real when he was only loaned on the 19th September long after the season started. Again, from where was he loaned? If he is loaned again this season to a different club, from where was he loaned? Is it not significant that he made 0 appearances because he was frozen out of the club on purpose?

Also, as pointed out, there are huge swathes of players who make 0 appearances in campaigns, often for seasons in a row - but they are first team, maybe on the bench - but what we are creating here is a rationale that actually complicates what information should be presented by making it either situational, or requiring looking into eligibility etc. Can anyone actually summarise when a row should be removed (or not displayed)?

As for reliable source for inclusion in a table: the player is loaned from another team. Excluding the other team from the table because a particular website doesn't display it is SYNTH. We know he is contracted to Chelsea (or Real, or whatever). We know he has been loaned from that club. We know that he has made 0 appearances in whatever competitions we list and "other" although he played for the U23 team of the parent club and so on and so forth. We also know where he did make appearances for other teams.

However declarations like we shouldn't include it because he can't have been selected and he was on loan all season etc are observably untrue - and those are the arguments that I am highlighting do not hold water and seem to have been thrown at the screen because "it looks untidy" isn't a rationale.

If we want to make that table footer represent only games played, do it. Say thats what we want to do. Argue to remove all 0 lines in all situations because they are redundant. At least then you are juatified adding a disclaimer saying "Table represents only senior team appearances" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at that table for Ike Ugbo and tell me who is the parent club? From where has he been loaned each season? How would any reader looking at that table know that he has been a Chelsea player each and every season? It doesn't matter. The question the stats table answers is "who did Ugbo represent that season" The player wants to know form where he was loaned? Read the infobox or prose (or we can add a note to the table solves that too). Also, the average reader who will see 5 blank rows of Chelsea and then 5-6 rows of loans won't understand what's going on.

Can anyone actually summarise when a row should be removed (or not displayed)? When the player isn't with the club for the whole season. As in the player was loaned from the beginning of the season until the end of the season. Or loaned from beginning of the season until date X and then loaned the next day until the end of the season (ok technically on date X he could've appeared for the club, but no club ever would do that).

We include info based on reliable sources. If we don't have a source that displays it that way, then that is OR/SYNTH. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that in both this and the youth/senior career debate that editors are prepared to overlook such basic pillars as WP:V and WP:NOR in favour of some confusing WP:FOOTY rules that are never actually defined to the casual reader. Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew and Spike 'em: well Soccerbase has Ugbo's senior Chelsea career starting in January 2017...

And only has one line for Chelsea, not five. --SuperJew (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because the table at the top of the Soccerbase profile serves the same function as our infobox, albeit with "Cup" and "Other" appearances included. – Pee Jay 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct. Soccerbase also only has one line for Chelsea for John Terry - our career stats table has 19 (if I've counted correctly). SuperJew, you asked for a source which shows Ugbo's senior career/stats beginning when we say it should be, and have shown you it. What is the problem? Giant Snowman 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No problem. So we can source the table to Soccerbase and have it formated as such with one row for Chelsea and not five blank rows. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We're getting there! I still don't see the benefit (or consensus) for only one row. Giant Snowman 18:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding John Terry, we can source the multiple rows for Chelsea via Soccerway. The point of the argument is that for a season that the player wasn't at the club, no outside source (or none has been brought here) shows a blank row for them - Soccerway doesn't include a row with Chelsea for those seasons and Soccerbase shows a row of the whole period. If you have a reliable source which does show blank rows for discussed seasons, please show us. Otherwise we need to format in one of those ways as per sources and not per OR/SYNTH. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not need a source that shows a blank row for us to show a blank row. That's like saying we can only mirror the formatting of another website. By that logic we need to match column headers and so on and so forth (and makes multiple tables elsewhere straight OR which you know is insanity), and at the same time any user making that claim is fundamentally ignoring that the websites universally state "2017-" or similar, that these players were contracted to those clubs.

This argument:It doesn't matter. The question the stats table answers is "who did Ugbo represent that season" The player wants to know form where he was loaned? Read the infobox or prose (or we can add a note to the table solves that too). Also, the average reader who will see 5 blank rows of Chelsea and then 5-6 rows of loans won't understand what's going on.

Does not support this When the player isn't with the club for the whole season. As in the player was loaned from the beginning of the season until the end of the season. Or loaned from beginning of the season until date X and then loaned the next day until the end of the season (ok technically on date X he could've appeared for the club, but no club ever would do that).

Two challenges: # Define whole season using a reliable source: use Gareth Bale as the example seeing as he is missing a row for Real already.

Per Ike Ugbo if a player is at a club when games are played, and they are training and elligible, identify a reliable source that says that they were somehow not eligible due to a loan that happens after those games are played, or played subsequent to their return (and for which reliable sources mention them training with the senior team prior to those matches)? Koncorde (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well in this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_139#Career_Stats_Table_-_midseason_transfer_-_missed_competition most said to use dashes for a section when a player was not available for a competition (ie. transferred to club after the club was eliminated), so based on that discussion there should be no 0s for Ugbo, dashes at the maximum. And on a completely irrelevant point, can we make a random subtopic break, it's getting annoying with the amount of scrolling I have to do for this discussion in reading and writing comments, a subtopic would make it earier LOL. RedPatch (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We use dashes when a player is not eligible after a mid-season transfer, nothing about them being out on loan - and in any event you are aware that consensus can change? Giant Snowman 20:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, yes, but that was an extremely recent discussion, so I doubt much has changed, it's not like it was from 2015, it is a discussion from 2021. I brought that up though, if consensus as of less than 4 months ago was "if a player was unavailable to play in a competition because he was not with the club and played for a different team, put dashes" how does that mesh with "for all the competitions this player was not eligible for because he was not with the club and played for a different team, put zeroes" RedPatch (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Then include the multiple 'blank rows' for a parent club, but with dashes rather than 0s in them - something me and LTFC 95 discussed days ago but nobody else latched on to. Giant Snowman 10:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it still seems overboard. The whole argument was so you know who the parent club is but it gets messy because you get 5 years of blanks, then go back in time 5 years, then another 5 years of stats. I've never really been a fan of this "jump forwards and backwards in time" stats table. The whole argument was so you know who the parent club is, but 'one row' does that, you look to the last row above that does not have the word loan. A ton of blanks rows provides no extra information. Several other proposals were made for the one row, including a range, which would do the same as the five, but in less space RedPatch (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But a range won't work where a parent club has played in multiple divisions, and it implies that there was only one season with the parent club, which is not true. Giant Snowman 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How does having a range imply there was only one season? The only way it implies it is if you don't read and suppose that that's the meaning. And so you can write both divisions if the club changed division. Is this a stats table of the club or the player? What does the division matter anyway for a club the player isn't currently playing at? --SuperJew (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it's 'one row = one season' except in the cases you are suggesting - and we display division for every other entry, why not parent club? That is (again) useful information for the reader. Giant Snowman 09:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How is the division of a club the player isn't playing with useful information? I mean it could be, but it's not relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well why is the division in the MOS at all then? Giant Snowman 11:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's useful to know in what division the player is playing in. That's firstly. Secondly, it can't be that all your answers are "why's the MoS like that then?" Having this discussion is from a basis that the MoS is not set in stone and that consensus can change (though most of the stuff we're discussing is not even in consensus and is not clear from the MoS). --SuperJew (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful to know about the division - hence my point as to why the 'one row only for parent club' is insufficient. The MOS is clear, unless you don't want it to be. Giant Snowman 18:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The division is useful for the club the player is playing for. If Ugbo is currently playing for Cercle Brugge, then it is irrelevant what divison Chelsea is playing in. Just as in the 2018-19 season on Cristiano Ronaldo's stats table it is irrelevant what division Real Madrid are playing in, and just as in 2012-13 on Paul Pogba's stats table it is irrelevant what division Manchester United are playing in. And regarding the MoS, I have addressed that issue above and explained how it is ambiguious and how a few stories can fit the same table shown. You're ignoring to see it and keep saying that it's clear doesn't make it so. --SuperJew (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

^ From Chelsea

2020–21 Juventus F.C. Under-23 season

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

can you help me to complete the page's "overwiew" section? Dr Salvus 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, this would fail WP:NSEASONS and should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what the name suggests, Juventus U23 doesn't play in an under-23 league. They are a reserve side that play in the Serie C. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

They can't play in the Coppa Italia, there for, as far as I am aware they fail WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

NSEASONS doesn't say anything about domestic cups. It states that articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. As long as they play in the Serie C, their season is notable. Regardless, with the fact that it is Juventus' reserve team, it gets a lot of coverage and easily passes GNG imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it changed, I thought there was something about having to play in the cup last time.. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cup eligibility/participation relates to club notability, not seasons. But don't forget - GNG rules every around us. Giant Snowman 20:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like being a reserve team kinda goes against the notion of "fully professional league". theyre a reserve team. I think that should DQ a league from being "fully professional". and I don't think the source included states serie c is professional? it just talks about how much theyre paid. if being paid means pro that opens up quite the pandora's box. playing for juventus' reverses shouldnt be considered relevant for things like seasons and player articles. (plus, whilst a league might be fully pro in one year, a semi pro or amatuer team being promoted into it could cause it to be DQed). at the least, I am the opinion that reserves teams wouldnt count the same as regular teams.Muur (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Muur, Italian football sistem is different than English. Italy does not have a league for Under-23s but they play in the third tier of Italian footy sistem without the possibility to play the Coppa Italia. It can be compared to an Under-23 team playing the League One without being able to play the FA Cup and the Carabao Cup. Serie C is recognised as a fully professional league and Juve U23 play in Serie C. If Juve U23 do not meet WP:NSEASON they'd meet WP:GNG since they're Juventus' reserve team Dr Salvus 09:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

still a reserve team though. I feel like there could be added clauses that say resvere teams are too irrelevant to count. like, this will have shit like some 15 year olds playing the odd match since I assume Juve U23 sometimes do that. the U23 isnt the main team, I disagree with all this.Muur (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What does the team being Juventus' reserve team have anything to do with notability? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Now I've created the article about 2019–20 season of Juve U23 Dr Salvus 05:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How to name category?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How should we name the category for the women's football department of Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait)? Al-Arabi SC (women's football) obviously doesn't work since we would need to include "(Kuwait)". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) (women) or similar? Giant Snowman 14:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) women's footballers perhaps? Two sets of ()s seems too much. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll go with Joseph's proposal. We can always rename it if needed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox years unknown

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When it is known a player played for a club, but we do not know which years, why is the standard to have a blank space? Why not the default – on the left? It's a bit useless if you ask me to have "Club X appearances" in the infobox if it's an empty filter. I would just like to put this into question because it doesn't seem like a standard that makes any sense in this WikiProject. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because blank is unambiguous. Giant Snowman 19:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

KS Cracovia

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should I convert this to a disambiguation page? It doesn't make much sense to me to have this page as an "article" unless it's expanded. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Giant Snowman 19:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting stats tables for players in Sweden

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hi folks - apologies if this has been discussed on here before but I could not find any discussions. Is there a set system for noting domestic cup stats for players in Sweden? The way their domestic football association has scheduled their competitions is a bit strange to say the least - their domestic league runs over the summer so is defined in one calendar year, i.e. 2021 Allsvenskan, but their domestic cup runs from fall to spring, i.e. 2020–21 Svenska Cupen. I was updating Joona Toivio's stats today and put all 5 of his 2020–21 Swedish Cup appearances into his 2020 stats row. After, I thought that maybe I should break these appearances up per year and make a note of how many appearances he made in each edition of the cup. But that could get pretty confusing to readers because let's just say his 2020 cup stats row could have a note saying he made two appearances in the 2019–20 cup and three appearances in the 2020–21 cup. Beyond Sweden, I know that Estonian domestic football is structured in the same way, and another, bigger example, is the AFC Champions League works on an annual basis but there are plenty of leagues in Asia that run from the fall to spring (Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to name a few) and I rarely see any articles that seem to do a good job defining this divergence. I made notes on André Carrillo club stats table defining how many appearances and goals he made in each edition of the AFC Champions League and I think this looks good but not sure if this is even the correct style? Thanks for any input. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Swedish domestic cups are part of the "first" season (for example, the 2017–18 Svenska Cupen is considered part of the 2017 season). Same idea for AFC competitions (so, the 2018 AFC Champions League is part of the 2017–18 season). The logic is that we should look at when the competition begins: does the "2021 competition" begin during the ongoing 2020–21 season, or during the 2021–22 season? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a European component (the winner of the cup qualifies for European competition for the following season. So it should match up with that. The cup competition that qualifies for the 2021-22 EL tournament should be in the same career stats line as the season that qualifies for the 2021-22 EL. That could be an easy way to do it. RedPatch (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you both for the input. I'll leave Joona's stats as I updated them then and follow the "first" season logic moving forward. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "official" rule for this, and since most sources do not summarize a "season in a single row", it's difficult to find precedent. But for the Swedish sources I have access to that try to do this, they do one of two things:

Treat stats per season of the main competition (i.e. stats per calendar year), disregarding that the cup or UEFA competition stats for a single tournament would be split across two rows. This is amongst others how IFK Göteborg record player stats on their site, and how the official historical records of IFK Göteborg players are kept (both in published books and on https://ifkdb.com/), as well as how AIK record player stats in their annual reports. Most clubs either do not have detailed stats on their sites, or split the stats into the different tournaments to avoid having to deal with the problem.
Treat the year a tournament is completed as the main competition season to include it with. This is how the Swedish football yearbooks record stats. E.g. the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen season is treated in the yearbook dealing with the 2015 Allsvenskan season. The same goes for UEFA tournaments in those yearbooks. This is, in my opinion, much more reasonable than using the starting year of the tournament. Both from a record keeping point of view – when the main season is completed, it should be possible to "close the records" for that season, and not having to wait another 6 months. And from just the logical perspective of when the more important parts of a tournament take place – e.g. Svenska Cupen is two rounds of matches (of which Allsvenskan teams join for the second round) in the first year, but six rounds of matches in the second year, including the final.

– Elisson • T • C • 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RedPatch makes a good point above though, regarding the qualifying aspect of the domestic cup. The winner of the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen and the winner of the 2014 Allsvenskan both qualify for the 2015–16 European competitions. Also, for example, 2014 AIK Fotboll season shows the 2014 league and 2014–15 cup, not the 2013–14 cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

But the qualifying aspect doesn't really have anything to do with record-keeping, and is just an opinion, like my opinions on the second variant (which are just there to give reason to why sources may do as they do). The qualifying aspect is not a fixed or statuc rule either. For example in the early days of UEFA play, the leading team of the Allsvenskan season at the summer break (halfway through the season) determined the team qualifying for the European Cup, which would mean we should switch the record-keeping around for those seasons? As no sources as far as I can see uses the variant proposed by RedPatch, why should we? Same with the AIK Fotboll season you link, we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. :) And you'll find other alternatives out there, like 2019 IFK Göteborg season which basically corresponds to my alternative 1. above. – Elisson • T • C • 19:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johan Elisson: I like your second option. I guess if I implement this in career stats tables, I would just add a 2022 season row for players when they make an appearance in round 2 of the future 2021–22 Svenska Cupen when it starts this upcoming fall - even though that appearance would be in October or November 2021? Also, for example, going back to Joona Toivio, I would just move down a row all of his cup stats and then put 0 appearances in for 2018? Rupert1904 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Arnaud Tattevin

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May someone move Draft:Arnaud Tattevin to the mainspace? Just debuted for Central African Republic national team.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Kenny Coker

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

I would just like to point out that Kenny Coker has officially signed for Norwich City and will join them when the transfer window opens on 9 June. It says he is joining Norwich's academy setup first, so I don't know what the procedure is for a player who went pro and goes back to academy. Could someone help me on this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This almost certainly re-ignites the debate about when a player's youth career ends........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Are Norwich trolling us: don't they know that once you've made a 1st team appearance that a player is banned from being a youth player because it might confuse someone reading WP? I notice he has signed a scholarship contract, not a full one, so we have clear verifiable information that he is in fact a youth player for Norwich. Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is really not okay by Norwich. I think an admin should write them a letter explaining the situation. :P --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It has to go in the Youth Career section then. Although knowing Norwich, they'll probably just loan him out to a League One/Two club instead, which will then further complicate things.... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

He has had 2 seasons of senior, professional play. His age is meaningless. Giant Snowman 10:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting his age is the issue, rather the fact that we have a categorical statement from the club that he will be joining on a youth team contract, not a senior contract..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively he has a grand total of 97 minutes of senior, professional play and twice that already for Norwich's U18 team. Spike 'em (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The type of contract is, in reality (for us), meaningless. You get those on 'youth' contracts who are regular in the first-team, and those with professional contracts who languish in the Reserves... Giant Snowman 10:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But the club stating that he will be part of the academy setup is not meaningless. Spike 'em (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It says he is joining their academy/development side. And development sides kind of skirt the line between youth and senior career. Either way, I think it would look stupid if the infobox goes back and forth skipping years between youth career and senior career.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks stupid if an infobox shows a player who is playing for the youth club consistently and is on an academy contract as a senior player and doesn't reflect reality. --SuperJew (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I never understand this argument. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, but here we have verifiable information that the player is continuing in youth, yet people want to ignore it. Why don't we ignore any and all U17/U20/U23 national team caps after a player debuts for the senior national team? Once they are senior national players, I guess they no longer qualify for youth national teams according to Wikipedia. Explain to me how its different? (Hint: It's not). RedPatch (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Because we display club (youth) and club (senior) in separate sections - but all international in only one. So there's no way to differentiate international apps like we do clubs. Giant Snowman 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

you would just list him as a norwich youth player and only put norwich in his senior career should he play for them or go out on loan. I've seen a few players for teams like Man United and Arsenal do that.Muur (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Muur and GiantSnowman: What was the consensus last debate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The last debate was an RfC that lasted several months, and reached no consensus. There were something like seven different options though, so if we were to do another RfC there should only be two choices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The James Rowes

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Afaict, the third one is fine where he is, but would it be WP-good to rename 1 and 2 to James Rowe (footballer, born 1991)/James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Move the first two to 'footballer, born 1991' and 'footballer, born 1983' respectively. Giant Snowman 18:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The second one should be deleted as a WP:NFOOTY failure, which would go part of the way to resolving the issue. Number 5 7 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Start the Afd and we'll see if that works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The page definitely passes WP:GNG, they should be moved not deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Started here Talk:James_Rowe_(football_manager)#Requested_move_8_June_2021. As an aside, I just noticed they were both at Aldershot Town at the same time, one as player and the other as assistant manager. Interesting coincidence RedPatch (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The third one should really be at (Australian rules footballer) per WP:NCFIA. Hack (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocks needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Jornalista1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been quite persistent in pushing fake content at Rico (footballer) ‎ and 2008–09 Fulham F.C. season. A block is overdue, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE.

Cariocaginga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be an meatpuppet or a sock and should also receive a block. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cariocaginga has not edited for a few hours, and Jornalista1950 for nearly a month. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If either come back please let me know. Giant Snowman 21:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: As you can see from their contributions both users have been very persistent and have returned again and again. And neither of them has made any constructive edits so I don't see how a block would not be preventative.

Anyway, Sabrinaweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who looks to be a sock, has re-introduced the hoaxes. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We cannot block non-active editors, at least not until they return again. However, it is now clear socking, so I have blocked all 3 accounts. Giant Snowman 10:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

New Coppa Italia format

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Two days ago, legaseriea.it officialized the new Coppa Italia format. Lega Serie A called the rounds: turno preliminare (preliminary round), "trentaduesimi" (Round of 64), sedicesimi (Round of 32), ottavi di finale (Round of 16), quarti di finale (Quarter-finals) etc...

Unfortunatley trenatduesimi aren't contested by 64 teams, instead it's contested by 32 teams. Sedicesimi are contested by 16 teams. How can we name the aforementioned rounds? Dr Salvus 09:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely there is an error in that document? I can't read Italian, but it seems to say that the "sedicesimi" features 16 teams, but the "ottavi di finale" also features 16 teams?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I agree with you, I think there's an error in the document. As "sedicesimi" we mean the 16th of finals (or Round of 32), but it's contested by 16 teams. As "ottavi di finale" we mean the 8th of finals (or Round of 16). Dr Salvus 10:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, 1st and 2nd round seem the obvious choice for me. format as picture -Koppapa (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Koppapa, yes, I agree. I hope other users agree with you Dr Salvus 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Juventus old players (pre 1930s)

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to create as more possibile pages about all Juventus players. I'm pretty sure that the players from 1930s to today are not able (they meet WP: NFOOTY) but are notable Juventus players who played for Juve before 1930s? Dr Salvus 20:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they would be inherently notable unless they pass WP:GNG. But if you can find good references and sources I think you should be fine to make the pages, especially if they are noteworthy - ie, played in the NT, or were coaches, etc.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Ortizesp, thank you. Are the Juventus players who won the 1905 and 1926 Scudetto despite they don't meet WP:GNG? Dr Salvus 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No; if they don't meet GNG they are not notable. Giant Snowman 17:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I noticed there are some books which mentioned that Juventus players who won that scudetti Dr Salvus 19:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they don't fail WP:GNG if there are books about who mentioned them Dr Salvus 20:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends what level of detail the books go into. Giant Snowman 20:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I noticed also that Juworld.net, calcio.com and myjuve.it mentioned them. These sourced seems to be reliable Dr Salvus 20:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, a mention is not sufficient. To meet GNG the coverage must be "significant". Giant Snowman 09:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Chamois Niortais F.C.

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. If by any chance y'all have stumbled upon players who played for Chamois Niortais F.C., what did you put in the infobox? Chamois Niortais or Niort? What should we be putting? Is there any consensus? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say "Chamois Niortais". --SuperJew (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I always use 'Niort'. Either is fine, as long as it is consistent in the article. Giant Snowman 13:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of round by round results tables

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, some leagues like the MLS and the USL Championship have an unbalanced schedule where teams don't play every other team the same number of times and, at least for this season, they may even play some teams three times. For this reason, the USL Championship has been using round by round results' tables for quite some time. Is it ok to use such tables? They seem to be violating WP:ACCESS by being too large and by using colours for crucial information such as home team. The league season page from this wikiproject suggests the use of Module:Sports table, but those tables will be left mostly empty in these competitions, speccially this season where a 2 legs must be used to provide space for teams facing each other three times (see this). I'm working on a different design on my sandbox using two tables, one per conference, with cross conference games listed on additionall collumns. Would this be better? What should be used for those competitions? A.Caseiro (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating something similar to e.g. 2020–21 Scottish Premiership#Results if possible. – Elisson • T • C • 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Resources for Irish club appearances

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know of any resources for appearances in Irish club competitions, e.g. League of Ireland, FAI Cup, particularly from the pre-Internet era? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

would be nice for Eoin Doyle since some guy added stats for his earlier Ireland stuff and insists theyre correct so I had to slap a citation needed tag cuz he kept adding them back.Muur (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Display of unused kit

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

In 2020–21, Benfica had three official kits but never wore the third kit. Should the kit be removed from that season's article? SLBedit (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, Premier League clubs have to submit their kit options to the league, and they’re entered into the official league handbook (?). My guess is that even if unused, the third kit is registered into an official league document, so it’s probably worth keeping in the article. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it wasn't used and only served as a money-making exercise, I'm sure they still registered it as their third kit for the league season. – Pee Jay 18:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

they also sell the kit IRL and usually team's third gets get into the FIFA and football manager video games (prob PES too?). you can see here that benfica's third kit was used in fifa 21 for the 20/21 season.Muur (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep it in, if it was an official kit. Giant Snowman 07:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Input needed please

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Treble (association football)#Header info. Giant Snowman 07:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Australian national team articles separated by caps?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I came across this while editing and was wondering whether there was any purpose of separating these articles out by number of caps. To my knowledge this isn't in practice elsewhere, and I don't see how these articles are independently notable and cannot be merged. Was wondering what the project thought.

Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty common for appearance lists to be split at club level and there are a number of examples at international level too, England being the most obvious. Personally, I would have aimed for three rather than four lists, but I don't see an issue with the split to keep these lists manageable. Kosack (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah as Kosack said, pretty common. There's a fairly even split (110 players in the 1-cap, 108 in the 2-3, 116 in the 4-9 and then a bit top heavy with the main 10+ which has 195 currently) but difficult to foresee what the best split would be, and certainly 500 players would be too much for one page IMO. Crowsus (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to have multiple articles, though as Crowsus also noted, I would also probably merge 4-9 with 2-3. Three articles are enough imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Christian Eriksen

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Can any administrator semi-protect this article ASAP? S.A. Julio (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Kosack (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the level of activity at the page I think we might need to consider WP:FULL protection. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - have done. Giant Snowman 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we urgently change the image on his page?@GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be ideal for someone to lock c:File:20140904 - Christian Eriksen (cropped).jpg and block User:Thakkartejas across all Wikipedia projects. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by @NawlinWiki:. Giant Snowman 18:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

National Team vs Club team

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

If a national team (whether senior or youth) plays a friendly against a club team, that does not count for infobox purposes right. I was creating a draft article where a player was playing for the national U23 team and they played and scored in some pre-season friendlies against a couple of club teams. Those would not get entered in the infobox as appearances because they were not national team vs national team right? RedPatch (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

They're not FIFA official friendlies so they would not count. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - these are exhibition games, not official games. Giant Snowman 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those aren't official games. However, I don't think there is any database online that would list them as official (or list them at all). For statistics (and especially youth NT stats, which are often subject to OR), we should be following reliable sources. A few good websites for youth international stats are Global Sports Archive and Soccerway (the former is more comprehensive than the latter); also, obviously, the country's own FA website. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

worldfootball.net is always quite good for youth stats also. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I'll note that website. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to help with this article for Draft:Tony Mikhael because I don't see Lebanon listed on that site, but I'll note it for future with other players. RedPatch (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

u23/4 stats

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

is there anywhere tracking this? cuz I can't help but notice that Takefusa Kubo doesn't list U23 stats, as well as U24 (which the U23 are currently called due to the 1 year delay in all competitions) so doesn't have his stats from the goal he scored last night for the U24. also, should U24 be considered their own thing or what? its techincally only going to exist for one year going into the olympics. but still, is there anywhere tracking these U24 matches?Muur (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: Take a look at #National Team vs Club team above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

they dont have the stats I mentioned.Muur (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't list the stats, if there is no reliable source listing them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nations Cup Merge

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

seems like it was agreed to be merged in 2017 and never happened.. also, considering this was just a pretend cup made up by the teams invovled I would imagine it shouldn't be listed on any players that won it, since its basically akin to a pre season tourny with the matches counting as friendlies.Muur (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Team lists added to club articles using mix of references, personal knowledge and COMET

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Not sure what to do about this, I'm not really a fan of team lists on most club articles as they aren't keep up to date and seem to lead to vandalism. However that is my feelings and thought should get advice on what a user is doing with New Zealand football club articles for teams playing in top leagues. They have added team lists using a New Zealand football article that lists the players, so that is fine, but then it has positions and country codes, the only way you can have those are the country codes come from COMET (National Database that is restricted access) and positions from personal knowledge. So can the information stay? Is the fact that some of us can access COMET and know the information is correct, ok? What about positions that can't be sourced?— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are flags necessary for club articles, particularly when its unverifiable? Hack (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, not a fan of them anyway and it's not like the players are representing that country or likely to for most as well. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that use of flags in this situation falls foul of MOS:FLAGS. Hack (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems a mix of questions here. Would be helpful I think to list the article(s) you are talking about so editors here can see. The team lists should be referenced and not based of personal knowledge. OTOH it can be hard to regulate this on smaller things sometimes, so personally I don't make too much of an issue of it. Regarting the country codes and flags, that is currently the consensus of displaying team lists on WT:FOOTY. Regarding accesss to sources, there is no reason to remove information based on sources which are behind a paywall or not online per WP:PAYWALL. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a paywall or non online source. It's something that can't be linked too. Only people with access are NZ Football, Regional bodies, club administrators and referees. Its the database of all players and clubs that you get your own login and password for. So wasn't sure paywall would apply here or not. Examples are Auckland United FC, Western Springs AFC and North Shore United AFC.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting situation regarding the COMET source. I'm not sure what the answer would be. Regarding the teams lists themselves, strictly speaking the reference should include position and nationality (or at least an option to click-through for each player to their profile which contains that info as is often on club websites). If such a source exists, I would suggest replacing it. In reality though, often team lists themselves are sourced only to a list of names with the rest of the info (pos/nat) coming from other places not neccessarily cited in that article. IIRC there was a discussion in the general area on this page a few months ago. --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No concerns using an official database for nationality etc., as long as it is clear that is what has happened. If positions are unsourced then remove them. Giant Snowman 09:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2020 line-ups

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The line-ups published by the UEFA one hour before kick-off are wrong very often. After the match the UEFA publishs a PDF with the real tactics every 15 minutes. For the German Wikipedia I uploaded new graphics with the real starting formation (minute 0-15 in the document).

Now it's your decision, if you wanna use the wrong UEFA line-ups, which are published one hour before the kick-off when nobody knows, how the real formation will be oder if you use the real line-ups from the UEFA documents published after the match. Just look how different the Austrian line-up was from the expected one. Alaba played in a 3-5-2 as center back and not on the left wing in a 4-2-3-1. I think many of you watched the England match and saw, that they played a 4-3-3 with Sterling on the left und Mount on the right wing. For the match report you could use these Full time reports by the UEFA without a formation. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway play offs

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Okay so Soccerway count play offs as regular league appearances. This is something people will need to pay attention to because it will cause, and has caused (ive made a few corrections before) errors in stats due to soccerway counting them as regular league apeparences when theyre actually play off appearecnes. this is mostly relevant for non english players since soccerbase tends to be used for english players and *does* specify play offs. for example, Carlos Mendes Gomes made 43 league two apeparences, and three play off appeaences. Soccerway list it as 46 league two appearences whilst Soccerbase are usually accurate but uh, for some reason theyre counting the league two play off final as a regular league match? what the shit. (the totals in the league appearence are correct at least with 74 instead of 75). but still people will need to pay attention here for countries with play offs. england, india, usa, austraila etcMuur (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For India, there isn't really a way to distinguish so I would just use a note saying "3 appearances included from playoffs" or something. For Major League Soccer, I just link to the website which does differentiate between regular season and playoffs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

theyre still play offs in india, so go into "other"Muur (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The finals series matches in Australia are always counted as league appearances. Hack (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hack: I've just noticed that recently when udpating stats for Bobô and Tomi Juric respectively. Why is it like that? I would prefer adding to the other column and don't particularly like the way it currently is since it's extra matches beyond the regular season plus in every other league around the world with that sort of finals play-offs like the English lower divisions, MLS, Indian Super League, Eredivise European play-offs, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 relegation play-offs, etc., we put those stats in the other column and make a note about appearances in the play-offs. I am okay with adding play-off appearances to the league column for players in Belgium and Denmark as those are structured a bit a different as almost half the season is considered a "play-off" but I feel that A-League play-offs should go in the other column. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The reliable stat sources don't split league and finals. The league and federation only ever talk about total appearances. I would suggest including a note to say that A-League appearances include league and finals. Hack (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Two info box lines or one…

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

So, I’m trying to figure this out. Harry Souttar has had two consecutive loan spells with the same club. He didn’t play in the meanwhile with his parent club before being reloaded out. Now, Zlatan Ibrahimovic spent a year at Manchester United, was released and was signed by the same club 6 weeks later, however this is shown on Wikipedia as one spell in the relevant infobox. After making a change to Souttar’s article to match Ibrahimovic’s, Add92 reverted this and after being asked to explain the difference between the two, has pointed out an arbitrary website as a “source” and that we should use this. I asked him to explain why Souttar’s double loan and Zlatan’s double spell are shown differently and it’s been ignored. Can someone explain how my actions were incorrect, or if this is something we have as an oversight, which should be looked in to? Cheers. - J man708 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

With Zlatan, do we know whether or not he was on a rolling, week-to-week contract whilst they were negotiating a new deal? i.e. did he actually leave the club? As far as I can see, we don't know either way, so one line is fine. with Harry Souttar, the sources make it clear that he was "returning" i.e. it was a second spell, so we have two lines. Giant Snowman 07:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Zlatan left the club and was a free agent. That’s pretty much it. Two spells, one line. Confusingly though, when we have a player like Jesse Pinto who leaves football for a while and comes back with the same club, we seem to show two different lines. Then obviously we have Souttar’s issue as listed above, but this again is seen as different to say Luke Brattan, whose one year loan, was “extended” for a second season after the loan ceased. This happened again for a third season aswell, but is listed as one loan deal?

So, what I’m trying to get at, is where is the consistency? It seems arbitrarily defined on here by whoever seems to tell loudest and push the 3RR? - J man708 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you basing your assertive "Zlatan left the club and was a free agent" on? Players often stick around when their fixed contract expires whilst they negotiate a new deal. An extension to a loan is different to a new loan. I don't see any real issues with any of the examples you have highlighted. Giant Snowman 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it sounds like a dickish response (not intending that, GS), but Google “Zlatan released Manchester United 2017”. It’s listed everywhere that he left the club, recovered from his injury and was snapped back up.

If a contact is slated to end June 30th, then the player sticking around after that is a free agent. Isn’t it that we are basically implying that he was with them the whole time? If we state he signed a rolling week by week contract, isn’t that basically a form of WP:OR? Also, what do we do when George Weah plays an official friendly for Liberia ages after retiring? Stating his career ended in 2018 is just plain wrong. - J man708 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source saying he was released? In the absence of any source confirming what happened, you saying "he definitely left" is just as OR as me suggesting "he might have signed a weekly contract". Even if he was only 'released' for a few weeks, that does not mean we should treat it as two spells. Giant Snowman 16:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

consensus is that if they leave and re-sign during the same transfer window it counts as one spell. so like, leave on june 30th at the end of their contract but re-join in august. that counts as 1 spell as its during the same window. this doesnt count for loan players because when it expires they are still contracted to the other team, it wasnt "free agent for a month". now, if they left in june and re-joined in september that would be counted as two spells. he left in june and re-joined during the same window. this stops some players counting as like 7 different spells if they only played for 1 team their entire career. concensus could change one day I guess but it'd be silly if someone left on June 30th, rejoined on july 2nd, and we split their stats.Muur (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we even do it for loan players. For example, after the 2019-2020 season finished Jack Harrison was technically a Manchester City player again until he signed up for a third loan spell with Leeds in August; we don't split his stats. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Then Harry Souttar should match Jack Harrison. - J man708 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we definitely do do it for loan players. Giant Snowman 09:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m just after some consistency when it comes to multi-season loan deals. Remember, it needs to be understandable for the standard reader to see why X’s loan deal is shown in one line, but Y’s is shown in two consecutive lines, with no noticeable difference between them. - J man708 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well no. Souttar's is clearly two separate loans, it is not one loan deal over multiple seasons. That is what the sources say, and that is what we follow. Giant Snowman 11:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

And Brattan’s loan was one, over several seasons? You can see the ambiguity in this, yeah? I’m not saying that X or Y must change, but surely we can make it a bit easier to figure out? - J man708 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

North Macedonia

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Should their national team players who appeared for the country at youth level before the country's name switch have their international youth caps also changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia? Currently infoboxes have these players representing Macedonia U19 or Macedonia U21 (which both redirect to North Macedonia article) and then North Macedonia at senior level. I.e. Ezgjan Alioski, Goran Pandev, Elif Elmas, Ivan Trichkovski, and essentially any other player in the squad at the moment. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be anachronistic to change to North Macedonia; keep Macedonia if they played pre-2019. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you but then we don't separate those players senior stats between when the country was called Macedonia from the current North Macedonia so it seemed at odds in my view. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

When I said pre-2019, I meant exclusively pre-2019. Someone who played in 2017 and 2021 for the (North) Macedonia NT should have North Macedonia, and all stats combined, as it is effectively the same exact team with the same FA. It's not different to club re-namings. Maybe a note in the infobox (as we would do for clubs) saying something like "Macedonia became North Macedonia in 2019" could be a good idea? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no 'North Macedonia' team pre-2019, so for a youth player it should be displayed as 'Macedonia'. If a player played both pre- and post- the name change then just use 'North Macedonia'. Giant Snowman 09:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above about referring to 'Macedonia' pre-2019, for historical accuracy. Also, you all might want to keep an eye on Ezgjan Alioski, where there are a lot of of incorrect changes being made, such as referring to the subject's nationality as 'North Macedonian' (the demonym is just 'Macedonian'). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like for historical accuracy we should make a note somewhere about the name change on these players' articles then if we are going to lump all pre and post-2019 stats for the national team in the infobox in just North Macedonia. For this group of players who played before and after the country changed names, I think differentiating in the international stats section would be sufficient. A good example of this is how Arijan Ademi's international caps are tabulated, showing that he earned 9 caps for Macedonia between 2014–2018 and has earned 12 caps for North Macedonia since 2019. While if you look at Goran Pandev's international stats table, it suggests he was playing for North Macedonia in 2001. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We can list the team as North Macedonia with a note along the lines of The North Macedonia football team were known as Macedonia until 2019. This is similar to what we do for clubs that rename. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A note is good - but it wasn't just the football team that has changed name, it's the whole country. So I'd suggest 'North Macedonia' was known as 'Macedonia' until 2019. or similar? Giant Snowman 15:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's just a name change, not a change of borders or anything like that. I don't think a note is necessary, just the most recent name. – Pee Jay 16:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In practice that sounds fine but then you get players like Goce Sedloski and Veliče Šumulikoski who retired before the name change but played in the national team with Goran Pandev for over a decade but their international stats say they played for Macedonia and his says he plays for North Macedonia so to an uneducated viewer it looks like they played for different nations. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I just added such a note about the country's name change to Pandev's article - in the international stats table. Does this look okay to all? Rupert1904 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The note is good. Regarding player comparisons (Sedloski v Pandev), it's not different to situations such as Pierre Issa and Mohamad Atwi, who both played at Olympic Beirut; Issa left before the club changed its name to AC Tripoli, while Atwi stayed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. I will start adding this note to other players who made appearances for the national team before and after the name change. Also on a side note, that is a heartbreaking story about Atwi. I was not familiar with him. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Successor national teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Can anyone help out with the disruptive IP adding false information to UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying? They continue to add that Ukraine are successors of the Soviet Union, Croatia and North Macedonia are successors of Yugoslavia, and Slovakia are successors of Czechoslovakia. As has been discussed before, UEFA and FIFA only recognise Russia, Serbia and the Czech Republic as successors to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, respectively, which was already noted on the article. The IP is from Ukraine, so it appears they dislike the recognition of Russia as sole successors to the Soviet Union. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried reverting and warning them (again), but they're clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Needs an admin to either block or protect the page. FIFA/UEFA consider Russia as sole successors of USSR, and similarly for Yugoslavia. This IP user reverting cannot change that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio and Joseph2302: I've issued a final warning - please ping me if they come back. Giant Snowman 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman They're back from their block and doing the same edits again.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked by @Ashleyyoursmile:. Giant Snowman 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And they're blocked again- this time for a month. Would it be worth giving that IP address a longer partial block from editing that one page? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What does blocking admin @Luk: think? This relates to 91.234.72.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Given they are pretty much a SPA an indef page block might suffice? Giant Snowman 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be afraid they go to another related page to do the same thing. IMHO, 1 month puts the block up to the end of the Euro (which is on 11 July), so they might forget about this. I might be wrong though :) -- Luk ^talk 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough - let's re-assess after the block expires. Giant Snowman 09:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Block needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The user FootballManager2002 is working to change mentions of the sport in Australian pages from "soccer" to "association football" or "football" (contributions), which is against WP:NCFA. As one can see on their talk page, it has been explained to them many times by a few editors, but they refuse to even discuss and continue on the one purpose motivation. I think a block might be in order by now. --SuperJew (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for a month. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I see thank you for the update! --SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

template: footballfacts.ru

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like the the website is now completed the move to new engine and the old.footballfacts.ru isn't resolving anymore. I think it's time to update the template to the new format and verify all IDs. Some of IDs resolve correctly, others are not and will have be updated. Not sure if it's possible to bot-automate this task, looks like a lot of manual/AWB work. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is that website safe? My firmware blocks it with "Spyware detected - LT94fcT.-x-rar-" Govvy (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Never had such an issue on multiple laptops that I've used. This website is linked from thousands of wikipedia pages, so I guess if the threat was real it would've been already reported. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting,I tried to google what LT94fcT.-x-rar was and nothing came up. This time the website loads no problem, I don't know Russian know. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes on individual continental qualifying rounds

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Footy2000: May I ask what the point was in adding infoboxes to each of the AFC individual round pages of FIFA World Cup qualification? (Example: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round.) None of the other individual round pages have those infoboxes, and the info in the individual rounds is covered perfectly in the main qualifying pages. (In the case of the example above, it would be covered in the infobox at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC).) Jalen Folf (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Easier to navigate. And there's no harm in providing information about the tournament in a concise way. Btw, all the rounds have infoboxes. Footy2000 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Footy2000, What I mean is none of the other continental confederation round pages have infoboxes. I am not opposed to your reasoning behind the additions, but would you be able to add the infoboxes to individual round pages on CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL (where applicable), OFC (where applicable), and UEFA (where applicable) as well? Jalen Folf (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup I can. It'd be even better if someone helped me along with it. Should be done with a week. Footy2000 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Footy2000: I can help if need. Drop me a line. --dashiellx (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Heinz Michallik

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In the 1973 UEFA Cup Final Heinz Michallik (red link) played in the first leg, surely he must qualify for an article right? Govvy (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Did he not play in the Bundesliga? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the German language article, he made 39 appearances for Borussia Mönchengladbach, who were in the Bundesliga. Obviously we'd need to find a proper source for that, but does look like he's notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Voila. If nobody beats me to it I'll start a stub later. Giant Snowman 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Arab (Nations) Cup / FIFA Arab Cup

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In April, a user merged the articles for the Arab Nations Cup and FIFA Arab Cup articles. They claim that the 2021 FIFA Arab Cup is the 10th edition of the competition.

"The tournament will be delivered by FIFA, the Qatar Football Association, the Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy and the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 LLC. Seen as a vital opportunity to test operations and facilities ahead of Qatar 2022, the tournament will take place in the same timeslot as the FIFA World Cup. The finals of both the FIFA Arab Cup and FIFA World Cup will take place exactly one year apart – each on 18 December, Qatar National Day, which is a public holiday."
— FIFA.com

There is no mention of the Union of Arab Football Associations being involved. A citation from the UAFA website is used as a reason for the merge. I'm not certain that the articles should have been merged. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheBigJagielka: See this article by UAFA and this one by FIFA: both mention continuity between the "Arab Cup" and the "2021 FIFA Arab Cup" (the competition was never called "Arab Nations Cup", that was a "Wikipedia invention"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It might not have been officially called the Arab Nations Cup but that name predates Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it was never referred to as such in Arabic; I don't know if it was called that way in English pre-2006. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It was mostly called the Arab Cup but having a look at ProQuest, there are references to Arab Nations Cup as early as 1998 and 2000 in English-language sources. Hack (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Best FIFA Football Awards

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed, what I consider a long standing edit-war of sorts, that's certain editors will add The Best FIFA Football Awards to player articles in the honours section, others will come along and remove that award from the honours section. So... what the hell is going on? This back and forth adding and removing has been going on for ages!!! Govvy (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

LTA active in other wikis

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The LTA (Mike4Matthews17 being the latest incarnation) seems to be active in other wikis as well, I know this as I have received a large number of alerts about messages being posted on my talk page there (e.g. Italian and French. I see the LTA has been blocked already here (thanks @ChrisTheDude:), Spanish and Italian wikis but not on Commons. There may be some that I missed because I don't have any vandal messages from the pest today. I'll explore and clean up the mess left despite having very limited knowledge on other languages. Thankfully the English Wiki is always the quickest to spot. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Contacted me on Commons; I simply reverted. Giant Snowman 15:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is there a way to global block? --SuperJew (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - ask an administrator at metawiki (e.g. User:-revi who blocked a deceased Wikimedian last year). That may help with using global blocks on vandals across many Wikipedias. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The guy is most active on commons right now. And will edit as IP or any of their multiple accounts. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I got my talkpage on Commons semi-protected for 3 months, which should hopefully slow them down. I asked at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, in case anyone wants to do similar. I guess there isn't a way to semi-protect talkpages on every Wikimedia project? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: - thanks for the Commons link you provided. The only 'good' manual edit on my Commons user talk page being made which was not reverted was a notice that one of the screenshots I uploaded was a copyright violation. The rest is basically vandal and reverted edits there on a much larger page edit history than Joseph2302's. I will consider requesting protecting the talk page if there is at least one more bad edit by one of those sock accounts/IP's. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, while I remember, I managed to miss the vandalism on this talk page which was removed by Mattythewhite. I thought that was already removed by someone else. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978–79 London Spartan League

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This AfD just closed as delete in spite of the fact there's press coverage we can't access. Since we have typically kept these sorts of articles, we need to have a centralised discussion about when we can create articles on a league's season in order to figure out at what point on the pyramid it's acceptable to have articles about a league's season. I have no proposal at this point other than GNG, but what sort of coverage contributes to GNG for these sorts of articles would be helpful to know for future discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear, the toll on that last AfD shows these season pages fail GNG and the rest should be sent to AfD. I don't know how to do bulk AfDs. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, and that's why I've started this discussion here, to avoid a potential deletion conflict. I even think that article can be saved if we can access the British newspaper archives. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, of the articles I accessed on it, it just shows results. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: - stating that the outcome of one single AfD proves that every other one of the league's 100+ seasons automatically fails GNG is nonsense, I'm afraid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You lost me? I am talking specifically for the Spartan League which ran for 79 seasons. The division of this league are so slow on the football spectrum, GNG, where? Where is the evidence, supply it for each season then, no, then don't assume the whole lot should be kept on your whim. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I was factoring in the Spartan South Midlands League, which it became. But my main point is that you can't simply state that because the 1978-79 season failed GNG, then that proves that every other one does too. Coverage could have been very different in different eras and each one would need to be assessed on its own merits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In 1907, for example, when the LSL formed, it was effectively Step 2 of non-league football in the London area, so there's every chance it got much more coverage than it did in 1978..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure Govvy how this proves anything. Sources were identified, and those that could access them were asked to do so. None did. We don't have problems finding contemporary coverage for such leagues; no reason that there shouldn't be offline sources for historic pre-digital seasons. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I did access some of them, and all I saw was results of teams in that league! Feels like no one is listening to me! Govvy (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

All you saw was results of the league in the BNA, User:Govvy? Two other people noted they easily found more than that in BNA. I'm not sure you are listening to us. What was you search string at BNA? Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Popular pages (Most viewed stubs in this Wikiproject)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

165 rank Burak Yılmaz 157,510 total 5,080 daily Stub Mid
193 2020–21 Chelsea F.C. season 135,077 4,357 Stub Low
225 Joe Willock 118,863 3,834 Stub Low
266 Christophe Galtier 107,631 3,471 Stub Low
274 Anthony Elanga 106,108 3,422 Stub Low

Fun fact: This is the most active Wikiproject on Wikipedia: WikiProject Football 195,831 articles, 191 participants, 2,251 editors--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ben Brereton

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

With his debut for the Chile NT, multiple editors have changed his full name from "Benjamin Anthony Brereton" to "Benjamín Anthony Brereton Díaz". Unless we find an official document by the CONMEBOL or Chile FA, I would refrain from doing so. A PDF similar to these two ([5], [6]) would be ideal. Also, even if we did find an official reference to source his full name as "Benjamín Anthony Brereton Díaz", it wouldn't really make "Benjamin Anthony Brereton" his birth name in my opinion, as it would imply him legally "changing" his name. He just has two different passports with different names. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a bit complicated, obviously his full name would include Diaz, but maybe his legal name in England wouldn't have the Diaz. I think as it is now, with the birthname and full name as separate is good enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My point is that we have two problems at hand. First, does his legal name (in Chile, or wherever) include Díaz? If so, we need an official document. Secondly, if his Chilean name does indeed have Díaz, how should we portray it in the article? With a "full name" (with Diaz) and a "birth name" (without)? This also impacts several other players who have dual-citizenship (with different naming systems). For example, Elkeson (Brazilian) / Ai Kesen (Chinese), or Felix Michel (Swedish) / George Felix Robert Michel Melki (Lebanese). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think mentioning he uses it when playing for chile is fair. its still a name hes using even if its only akin to a Stage name. Hulk (footballer)'s real name isnt hulk, that's his stage name and ya'll are fine at using that on his page instead of his real name. hes using "Ben Brereton Diaz" professionally when he plays for Chile so there's no reason not to mention the fact he's using it on the international stage and why. blackburn rovers even used the name here so is this website you guys list as a reliable acceptable source.Muur (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Presumably Diaz is his second, or maternal, surname, used in the Spanish naming customs (which are used in most Spanish-speaking countries). But outside of Spanish speaking countries, only the first surname (Brereton) would generally be used. Though we should definitely find a source for this, rather than assuming it works this way. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Punching this into a search engine quickly brings up a number of possible sources, all of which so far are in Spanish. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

[1] From Chelsea

[a]