Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 160

Archive 155

←

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

→

Archive 165

Hooping1

Can somebody please have a word with @Hooping1: who is edit warring to add in details (cited to the club's match reports only!) of every goal that Aidomo Emakhu every scored for Shamrock Rovers. We are an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. GiantSnowman 15:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

arent you an admin?Muur (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Muur: What does GS being an admin have to do with anything? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

surely gives him the authority to yell at or ban him etc.Muur (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a misuse of admin privileges to use them against someone you are involved in a content dispute with.

Spike 'em (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can jump up and down and try to explain why their edits are wrong, but I cannot block them. Me being an admin is entirely irrelevant. GiantSnowman 09:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Players who left their teams which won the CL

Players who in middle of a season left their teams (even as a loan) which won the Champion League later should not be included as the winners as they only played in the group stage and were not registered as part of their (former) teams in the knockout stage. NextEditor123 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I totally disagree, assuming you are talking about UEFA CL (UCL), since other CLs exist in other continents, as UCL is a tournament and not a one-day match, even more when a player who played in the group stage of the UCL has no right to play again there (or in UEL or UECL) with another club, based on the current UEFA regulations. In other words, if there is contribution (by playing), one deserves a piece of the winning pie in my opinion, whether that is just a title acknowledgment and/or even a medal, because the winning club, additionally to the trophy, gets 40 medals; how these will be distributed seems to not be mentioned, i.e. I suppose it is left in the free will of the winning club, hence a club could give a medal even to a player who only played in the group stage. Bottom line, any player who played even for 1 sec as a sub should be included as winner. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually know that one-team rule for players in UEFA club tournaments had been canceled since 2019-20 season? Since that there are many players who jumped the ship in the middle of seasons and still played in the tournament's knockout stage but representing another team (Erling Haaland for example).

You should not guess what happened to free medals as you don't have reliable information about that. Especially when we talk about players who were not a part of the teams anymore before the UCL triumphs. NextEditor123 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Had been cancelled? Is it still cancelled now? I am asking because the one-team rule seems to stand, based on the current regulations. In any way, it does not matter at all whether it has been cancelled or not; if a player contributes even for 1 sec in a match in the proper tournament, then he deserves to be included in the winners, in my opinion. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/024e-0e9960c4c766-21ef2df7ed44-1000--can-january-signings-play-in-the-champions-league-europa-lea/ NextEditor123 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It does matter there because you brought it as an argument for your position. I repeat that it is personal opinion that does not matter in Wikipedia. Provide legit reasons why we should include players who left their team as one of the tournament's winners.

https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/024e-0e9960c4c766-21ef2df7ed44-1000--can-january-signings-play-in-the-champions-league-europa-lea/ NextEditor123 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

As it seems I did not make myself clear, I will have to rephrase: contributing to the club's course in a UEFA league by playing in the proper tournament, even for a second, is a good enough and legit enough reason the player to be included in the winners. Remember that even players who did not play at all get awarded in tournaments of greater range for just being part of the squad, e.g. like Nikola Kalinić in 2018 World Cup.

Now, I have to say I do not understand the personal opinion thingy; again you do not seem to know where you are, as everything is based on personal matters and majority vote in a community-run site. For instance, that players who in middle of a season left their teams (even as a loan) which won the Champion League later should not be included as the winners as they only played in the group stage and were not registered as part of their (former) teams in the knockout stage is, and can be perceived as, your personal opinion. I have a different one. If the majority agrees with me, then we add these players to the honours section. If not, then we do not. As simple as that.

Kind regards,

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The big problem is that nobody except both of us participates in that talk forum about the dispute. NextEditor123 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

Yes, that is the main issue here. The previous time (before the recent talks) I had come in this place, I had left because of people's lack of interest to participate in the then raised talks.

Back on the topic, as my OCD does not allow me to leave something pending, so, for completion reasons, if a week passes without anyone else contributing to this talk (because a talk gets archived after 7 or 8 days, if I am not mistaken), then you can consider my mind changed, so we would be two people (2–0 score) saying these footballers we are discussing should not be included as the winners when they only played in the group stage.

After all, my objection is more so a kind of acknowledgment to be granted rather than to being named as winners, i.e. I would settle even with a relevant mention, like he played in the group stage of the club at the same season the club won the CL (EL or UEL accordingly) title. In fact, when a new season begins, since the summer preparation, and including all players coming after transfer eras, if one wished to include all footballers, (s)he would have to include (usually) about 70-80 footballers involved, but apparently this cannot happen, so at least there should be some acknowledgment to them who played even for 1 second in the proper tournament.

Kind regards,

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! In addition, I would like to also add that the group stage of UCL is not qualifying, but part of the proper tournament. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

How it concerns that topic? NextEditor123 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, you are right. My implication was not clear. What I meant is if a player contributes even for 1 sec in a match in the proper tournament, then he deserves to be included in the winners, in my opinion. However, if we were talking about a player playing in the qualifying rounds and not in the proper tournament, then I would agree with you to not be included in the winners, this is why I mentioned that we are talking about the proper tournament, so to be clear my thesis would be different if it was otherwise. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

What you think a player "deserves" is pretty irrelevant. Do WP:RS describe them as winning the tournament? If so, then add the mention, if not then don't. Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Except isn't that the standard in team sports?

I know, for example, in relay race sports (track, swimming, skiing, etc.) those who contributed only in the preliminary heats in a tournament or meet are considered to have been part of the win. Is this sport somehow different from other team sports? If so, how?

Or, instead, are the relay race sports the odd one's out? ie how does Volleyball, Basketball, Hockey, etc., etc., treat it? (I don't think that's the case but I've never looked into it), and if they are different, then which norm does Football follow?.

As mentioned below, this point came up in another recent discussion where I don't recall it being answered. Gecko G (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

How relay race sports is connected to that topic? We are talking about players' current club affiliation during the UCL triumph. There is a good logic that players who in middle of a season left their teams (even as a loan) which won the Champion League later should not be included as the winners because the teams, which they left, did not need them anymore. Why should we put players as the winners when they were not needed by the clubs during the triumphs? NextEditor123 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! What if the reliable sources describe them as winning the tournament, but there is a dispute, should this not then be decided in the talk page(s) by a consensus? (Which is what I/is suggested here.) Also, should we not have a norm about this, for fairness? I mean, for instance, in the official sites of clubs the players are often described as winning super cups, even though they did not play even for a second, but WP says otherwise. (Yes, obviously, there can be a lot of bias when coming from the club itself, but then again no-one knows better what happened to the free medals awarded than the club itself that gets them, since there is no ruling of who get the free medals in the regulations, i.e. reliable sources describe them as winning the tournament, but WP, by consensus, says otherwise). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion sounds awfully similar to some of the points discussed in the recent EFL Cup Honours Discussion. i.e. I see points about being cup-tied, about finals medals, and discussions skirting about it being a team sport and contributing to the team effort vs. individual recognition, as I recall that's 3 of the 4 points from that recent discussion. Only thing different is no other issues surrounding sourcing (and it's a different cup). Is this discussion somehow different, or is it simply an attempt at rehashing a discourse which you abruptly dropped out of when we had seemed to be making gradual progress on some partial clarity? Gecko G (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing player position/nationality categories

For anyone interested in improving categories for player biographies, I have just updated Category:Association footballers not categorized by position, Category:Women's association footballers not categorized by position and Category:Association football players not categorized by nationality with hundreds of new pages. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your script isn't working as it has included players in the Category:Irish footballers parent category. GiantSnowman 09:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Category:Irish footballers is a container category for all football codes. Also note that Category:Irish association footballers is also a container category, as footballers are subdivided by political entity for players before 1923, players from Northern Ireland, players from the Irish Free State and players from the Republic of Ireland. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you re-run the script to move, where appropriate, Category:Irish footballers to Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers. GiantSnowman 20:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya

Are Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya are recognized as official major trophies? NextEditor123 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@NextEditor123 Hello! I don't think so: although several notable professional teams have taken part in both competitions (especially Barcelona and Espanyol), the Catalan Football Federation is not recognized by UEFA and FIFA.

So, those trophies might still be good enough for the statistics, but not as "major" ones... Oltrepier (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! All football federations of the autonomous communities of Spain are recognized by RFEF, which is recognized by both UEFA and FIFA, in the same manner Brazilian state cups and state leagues are recognized both by CONMEBOL and FIFA. What is not recognized is a national team of Catalonia, because Catalonia may be an autonomous community within Spain, but it is not a nation. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lorry Gundersen Oh, ok, thank you for clarifying it. Oltrepier (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If RFEF recognize regional titles, why Wikipedia articles of any football player do not put Spanish regional accomplishments in the honours sections? NextEditor123 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your point is null and void. Wikipedia (WP)'s articles do not hold any significance at all, but the sources within their articles do, as WP is a user-generated site. This is why citing Wikipedia is forbidden by any paper or publication that holds any scientific value or truthness. So saying that if RFEF recognized regional titles, then Wikipedia articles of any football player would put Spanish regional accomplishments in the honours sections makes no sense at all. Sorry if this shatters your worldview of WP, but the opposite is only what counts. Here (from CIHEFE, it's in Spanish) you will find out why these tournaments are official by RFEF, i.e. recognized titles (and you can see RSSSF's link here). Regarding the topic of whether Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya are considered as major trophies or, better said, because that is not the topic, the question if they should/could be mentioned in the honours section of a footballer's bio, I will respond under your input there as soon as possible, and here I will suffice to mention that there is no precedence (you can search the archived pages to attest this) in deciding whether Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya should be included under the honours section of a footballer, so being included is equally legit to not being included. P.S. It is irrelevant, but the reason why you don't see it mentioned in footballers' WP bio articles, in my opinion, is because these articles are, unfortunately, based more on what news outlets report than what statistical sources do so. Copa Catalunya/Supercopa de Catalunya are very prestigious around the world, the Espanyol vs. Barcelona derby is equivalent, for instance, to RJ's Fla-Flu derby among fans and there is a lot of coverage even outside Spain (judging from the country I currently live, which is not Spain, and I read relevant sports news every year in famous football news outlets), as one can as well discover by a simple Google search. Why WP footballers' articles do not include these titles is a question you should ask WP, which is what we are doing here. Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia articles don't hold any significance at all, what is the purpose of them in a first place? Just because WP is a user-generated site, it does not mean that it is a site which is not regulated by administrators and staff who can check and filter an information from sources. It is not a social network there. For some reason, some news articles do use information taken from Wikipedia despite it being forbidden (like some sports site, we don't talk about a science in this case). Fist link which you gave me is just an author's guessing why these trophies should be accepted as a official major ones based mostly on his opinion.

I looked in Wikipedia articles (including the Spanish version) of Supercopa de Catalunya 2014-15, Copa Catalunya of 2012-13 and 2013-14 and I saw that Dani Alves was not called up for any single matches of all 3 editions (he was not even called as a substitute player). Which makes your statement more ridiculous and laughable. In addition to that, your claims of these trophies being very prestigious around the world is inaccurate at all as since 2014 FC Barcelona stopped allowing any main squad players to compete in there and FC Barcelona Atlètic (FCB youth team) participates instead of them since then.

And what are you doing there if you consider Wikipedia irrelevant? NextEditor123 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

It's not just an author's guessing why these trophies should be accepted as official major ones based mostly on his opinion, but something coming from CIHEFE, please look it up on Google or any other search engine you prefer.

Yes, Dani Alves did not play in any of those matches, but for that I did not look it in Wikipedia articles, but according DBs, statistical sources and publications, so, for that reason, based on this, which you yourself sent me in my talk page, even though it's talking about super cups only, I will have to agree these titles to not be included; WP is a community-run site, so if there is a consensus on something, I will have to comply, regardless if I like it and/or disagree with.

Regarding the topic of whether Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya should/could be mentioned in the honours section of a footballer's bio, I will respond under your input there as soon as possible.

P.S. To answer your question what I am doing here, I will confine myself saying I come to WP to mainly contribute information, and not learn, and, if needed doing the latter, it will be done only with according cross-checking of the sources.

Kind regards,

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

CIHEFE is a part of IFFHS. So what? Another weak arguments for tournaments that allowed making more than 3 substitutions (almost to 10 substitutions) in the matches before 2020-21 season. NextEditor123 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Also, as apparently you have never seen Spanish football, it must be noted FC Barcelona Atlètic is not a youth team, but a B team. B teams are senior teams. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a reserve team at first. Then it is senior team, pretentious genius. NextEditor123 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Do the clubs in question treat these as first-team competitions (i.e., they field their senior team in matches)? As we don't include appearances and goals from these competitions in players' stats tables, I suspect the answer is no, and if that is the case I probably wouldn't include them. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite Good point: since they're Catalan-centered tournaments by definition, it's possible that teams like Barcelona, Espanyol and Girona have used very "unusual" teams (at least for many of us)... Oltrepier (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite Hello! Yes, the clubs feature players from their senior (A) team in these matches, though often not with their basic eleven (due to rest reasons, i.e. for rotation, because of a schedule with consecutive matches, one per 3-4 days), like it happens in the cup matches, but the numbers in these matches are and are regarded as official. Now, because the point/question is/was if the titles in them (Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya) should/can be added to the footballer's honours section; in my humble opinion, if only major titles are added there, then I would agree these to not be added, only though if that is by WP consensus/football community decision, as these indeed are not major titles. However, if one wishes to refer to the official titles a footballer has, then (s)he should not omit including these, and these should also be included in statistical tables (for instance, like it is here); if not on the total, then in a separate column or within according notes. P.S. Then again, if such titles are included in the footballer's honours section for according Brazilian state cups, why not for Spain? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya are not major trophies. Then why should we include them in honour sections? Unlike them, Brazilian regional trophies are actually recognized as major trophies. Even lower division championships are more credible major titles than Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I did not say that. I said that if, and only if, WP editors do not consider these aforementioned titles to be major and the honours' section includes only major trophies, then I would agree to be included. Also, it does seem nowadays these titles to not be considered important, even though they are played in senior official tournaments of A teams (Barcelona and Espanyol dispatch their B teams since 2015, and this happens because Espanyol, their true main opponent there, sometimes also Girona, declined in level, not because it is a reserves' teams tournament). However, what is considered a major trophy/title? What is the definition of "major trophy"? I have no idea if there is precedence in WP about what WP considers major trophies, as I did not look, but major is an adjective and qualitative term, like top level of IFFHS is, which, for instance, considers Carioca and Paulista tournaments top level, while Gaucho and Baiano not, without giving an adequate explanation of why and why not, i.e. it is something subjective. As such, what I consider major trophies regarding the country's football tournaments (not including international ones) are the top-tier of the country's football league, the main national cup and a super cup, also a league cup if one exists. Do you wish to include also the state/regional tournaments (leagues and cups)? If you do for Brazil, then I fail to see why not also for Catalunya. In addition, one could indeed even include the 2nd-tier league of some countries, e.g. I would include, for instance, only from them of the top five in rankings of UEFA countries and in CONMEBOL of the top 3 ranking of CONMEBOL's equivalent rankings (for instance, I could consider the Campeonato Brasileiro Série B major, while I could not say the same for the Venezuelan Segunda División), but, again, as I previously mentioned, this is totally subjective. So, if only major trophies should be included, shouldn't we decide which are the major trophies by majority vote? P.S. In the case of Dani Alves, which were removed for another reason, things were pretty easy to decide also for another reason, because I had also found a FIFA publication (direct link here), which mentions 23 major titles there, i.e. it is stated explicitly by FIFA these are not major trophies. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By looking at the talk section's activity, it seems that nobody is going to give you a majority voting about that subject. Opponents became "weaker" is an absurd argument. Was their level much bigger before? Brazilian regional leagues are still considered as major leagues by everybody because they were only primary tournaments with round-robin format while the main Brazilian championship used single-elimination format (with group stages in late 1960s) and moved to round-robin format in 1971. You cannot say that it happened the same in Spain, can you? In Wikipedia articles of every football player you can see mentioning of any Brazilian regional championship in honour section of the articles (if they won one of them from any Brazilian state). While you cannot say the same for any Spanish regional championships. NextEditor123 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox football biography "totalyears" parameter

I've opened a discussion here regarding the "totalyears" parameter of {{Infobox football biography}}, if anybody would care to comment. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/41.234.180.205

I don't think this makes sense: why is there an anonymous editor who thinks changing the existing and active reference to a newer up-to-date one from the same website which surely the information about full names of players rarely changes (see this edit for an example). I don't think I see the point on replacing links which are definitely still active and give the same info on the relevant players. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed this on my watchlist - whilst I don't see the point, I also see no harm. GiantSnowman 20:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we shall leave it as it is. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I think Mattythewhite knows who is operating that account as it appears to be blocked. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Canadian premier league season navboxes

Please see this discussion on the talk page. CRwikiCA talk 14:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Udinese season 05-06 help

Hi,

Would anyone like to help out with Italian sources for 2005–06 Udinese Calcio season? I am worried that people who don't know the sport are trying to get it unfairly deleted. Thanks. OscarL 08:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edmonton F.C. (England)#Requested move 14 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edmonton F.C. (England)#Requested move 14 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks (contribs) 20:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Joe Scowcroft

Honestly, I am mystified why Joe Scowcroft got deleted, and the assumption that Simon Marland's books are primary sources. The guy was an independent historian who focused on Bolton Wanderers history before becoming a club secretary. There is nothing primary about the use of his books. While at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Scowcroft, people say his book is a primary source! No it is not a primary source. I really don't get how an old fully pro league player, with a few paragraphs written on him in multiple different books and no one did a newspaper search, get deleted. This has to be one of the worse AfDs I have reviewed after the fact. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was published while he worked for the club, so arguably it is a primary source i.e. it was written by a club employee. But more important than that is whether it actually contains any coverage of Scowcroft - can you confirm if it really contains "a few paragraphs" about a player who only played nine Football League games? Its listing on Amazon only says that it contains biographies of "prominent players". If he is only mentioned in passing in the book e.g. listed in team line-ups, then unfortunately it doesn't help to establish notability...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, the first publication that Simon Marland did, he didn't work for Bolton. Secondly, independent publication isn't primary. People are getting confused by sourced books here, regardless of primary or secondary, if the source is publishing nothing contentious then it doesn't really breach any guideline on wikipedia, wikipedia states secondary sources is preferred, but it doesn't say don't use primary sources. You can challenge a source all you want, but if it is correct, it there for is correct, regardless being primary or secondary. Govvy (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are getting a bit hung up on the question of whether that book counts as a primary source, when really the main question is whether it actually contains any coverage of Scowcroft. If it doesn't, then the question of whether it should be considered a primary or secondary source is not really relevant. Do you own the book or otherwise have access to it? If so, can you confirm the extent of the coverage of this specific player in the book? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

One paragraph and stats, which pretty much said what was on the page. Alas, not much I can do now, people clearly don't want a player article on a footballer who probably can pass GNG if they bother doing the research. Same old story, different article. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A big factor in deletion, is that there's not enough eyes on AFD. There's so many articles up for Football AFD, that some slip through. If you think it's worth keeping, have it transferred to your user space, see what can be done to fix it, and if you are happy with it move it back to user space. I've done that a couple of times ... and have had User:Nfitz/Nauru national soccer team on the go for 6 years now :) . Nfitz (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I create a Genessee Daughetee article?

I can't seem to be be able to create Genessee Daughetee article despite the fact I have reliable third person sources to support it's creation see here. 1. FC Köln verpflichtet Genessee Daughetee: Vertrag bis 2024 - kicker , Genessee Daughetee s’engage avec le DFCO féminin (k6fm.com), 1. FC Köln: Genessee Daughetee wechselt zu den FC-Frauen (24rhein.de), Genessee Daughetee - Women's Soccer - California Golden Bears Athletics (calbears.com), 1. FC Köln: Genessee Daughetee strengthens FC Women | Express, Genessee Daughetee extends another year! / Vittsjö GIK - Football - Damallsvenskan - Svenskalag.se, ÖFB-Spielerin Sarah Puntigam heiratete Frau | weekend.at, Episode 2 : Genessee Daughetee et Sarah Puntigam (fff.fr), Daughetee Inks Deal with French Club Montpellier Hérault | Pac-12 Dwanyewest (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: The player's name matches the string of an unrelated title blacklist. If you create a draft under a modified title (e.g. Draft:G. Daughetee), I could move it for you to the correct title in the mainspace. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have created the article, it's ready to be moved to Genessee Daughetee Dwanyewest (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest:  Done. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: the talk page needs the same function performed on it. Seasider53 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Now created as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Genessee Daughetee Puntigam I think should be redirected into Genessee Daughetee. What do you think? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I've created the redirect. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User input needed...

... on this talk page, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There is currently a large number of football-related BLPs that have insufficient sourcing. It's very important that all WP:BLPs are fully cited. Any help adding sources to these articles would be appreciated. A list of football BLPs with no references can be found here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that Anatoly Morozov (athlete) is on there even though there is one source, albeit a stats one that doesn't confer notability on its own. Also, should the article not be moved to Anatoly Morozov (footballer)? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's probably worth also having a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/BLPs lacking sources containing significant coverage/Full list. The latter list has over 800 articles listed as lacking significant coverage. Hack (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If it has a source, then even if that source is a database used as an external link, then it's not unreferenced. So all of those "unreferenced BLPs" are not actually unreferenced at all, just their reference(s) aren't in the generally agreed format. That being said, we should add more sources where they exist, and should be adding significant coverage too, but reliable database sources can be used for factual information. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Athletic Bilbao

Why is the page titled "Athletic Bilbao" if that is not the club's name? Literally the first two words of the article are Athletic Club and the infobox says Athletic Club. I'm also looking through the club website and it's clear that they refer themselves as Athletic Club/ Mwiqdoh (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME : Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources), the article continues commonly known as Athletic Bilbao. Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The same reason we have Inter Milan instead of F.C. Internazionale Milano. It's not perfect, but it'll do. – PeeJay 12:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So when do people think the right time to create subpages is

More pragmatically, when is the right time to create sub-pages? This is the root cause of the debate. This is the time of year they start to appear - as confirmation of league schedules, and which teams are in which league appear; along with staff and player changes. I'm puzzled why there are suggestions that 2023–24 Serie A and 2023–24 EFL League One were too soon. Or that group stage articles shouldn't be there seven weeks before the first round begins - I don't see such concerns about UEFA and CONMEBOL continental tournament groups - which are created MUCH earlier. Obviously there are limits - which is why WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 EFL Championship was a SNOW delete ten months ago. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cristian Romero (footballer, born 1998)

Can someone with move rights move the article back, it was moved without consensus. Govvy (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: I have reverted the move. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Question on 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group stage articles

What is the level of completion that is expected for these pages to exist? The four groups appear to all have been moved to the draft space without warning, and now the article for the main competition is no longer showing the groups. This is after the tables were moved to these new articles so they could be transcluded onto the article in the first place, so I am wondering how complete they need to be to be moved out of the draft space.

• Draft:2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A
• Draft:2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B
• Draft:2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C
• Draft:2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D

Jay eyem (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oh my. I already came across their attempt today to delete 2023–24 Serie A at WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Serie A and 2023–24 EFL League One at WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 EFL League One. User:Onel5969 has been here too long to not understand that this is wrong and disruptive. Has this become a problem? Perhaps I've been ignoring football AFD for too long. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm finally looking at these draft articles - and they have now gone to AFD. But not one AFD - but four different AFDs - one for each group; and it's snowing. I'm truly appalled. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have performed non-admin closures as WP:SNOW on all six of the AFDs listed here. They may have been eligible for procedural closes since they appear to have been content disputes that the user did not attempt to resolve outside of AFD, but that is moot. I will leave a note for the user on their talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Can User:Anwegmann, User:Robert McClenon, and User:Spiderone Please read this thread, and User_talk:Onel5969#Footy season articles before redraftifying or rejecting 1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season. It was originally draftified by User:Onel5969 who has recently shown extreme lack of judgement and whose competency to edit in the area of the WP:FOOTBALL project is being questioned, as discussed in both threads. With 30 other seasons articles for this top-level fully-professional club, I'm not sure why this would not be an AFD discussion if there are concerns.

It would help User:Iliochori2 if you provided at least one or two more diverse references for each article. Perhaps from a newspaper or something? Ping User:Govvy, User:GiantSnowman, and User:Jkudlick. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nfitz - Your comments about a particular New Page Patrol reviewer violate the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks here - except those below that I'd already commented about. Can you point to where on this page this is? I'm not sure how Spike 'em's role as a new page reviewer is relevant. Nfitz (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The basic nature of the page(s) explains, at least for me, the reasoning behind the draftification of that particular season's article—it functions as a basic list of facts supported by very few basic sources, which I thought ran counter to MOS standards. I am happy to follow the consensus, though, whatever that might turn out to be. Anwegmann (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• My gosh, he AFDed WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. And it got through AFD (GiantSnowman?!?). Sigh ... Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I ask for common sense to be use, far as I am concerned it's coming up too May now, which in a normal season would be the end of the season. This too early stuff from some editors is bull and shit! As for the Tottenham article, why is that a redirect and not others, inconsistencies in results? I probably be editing it days ago if it wasn't set to that. Govvy (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why was I the only one to ask for the close to revisited? It didn't seem that consensual - and surely should have been relisted rather than closed. And I've asked User:Randykitty to do so. But yeah - we are long past the time of "too soon" deletions, blanking, and draftifications. The previous season article was started on April 4th! But why did you, User:Govvy, draftify last years' article on May 16th? Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What is bullshit is people creating articles when no SIGCOV exists. Stop moaning because your view is not the dominant one. Spike 'em (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

With all these snow keeps, User:Spike 'em, how is my view not dominant? Also remain civil - you can be blocked or banned if you make personal attacks. And no significant coverage? Have you done a before on these? Big media coverage of the Gold Cup draw. And are you really suggesting there's not significant coverage of the TOP LEAGUE IN ITALIAN FOOTBALL? These articles are created at this point, every year (or two in the case of the Gold Cup). Nfitz (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to you and Govvy moaning about the consensus redirection of the Tottenham article, of which there is currently no coverage. There will undoubtedly be some in the future, and at that point the article can be created. Spike 'em (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

and responding to this This too early stuff from some editors is bull and shit! How is this not personal? Spike 'em (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I find the use of the word "moaning" uncivil, offensive, and a personal attack - stop now - I don't know what the use of the word bullshit has to do with anything - obviously I'm referring to your personal attack. I don't see consensus there; with 4 of the 8 participants pushing Redirect, the normal action is to relist, as there is no rush. And why waste time deleting articles that are created at this time every year - at best they'll be back in a few weeks time - it's only about 3.5 months to the start of the season. And also, there IS coverage already of next season, such at this, this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Govvy accused people of bull and shit, which is what I was responding to, but you choose to ignore that. Comments such as oh, i've really disturbed the clique haven't i are similarly uncivil so how about you stop posting if you can't keep to the demands that you make of others? Spike 'em (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that either of those examples are similar - though I've certainly done others, and when asked politely I try not to repeat them - and I apologize to whoever I may have offended - there is no excuse for repeating your "moaning" comment. Either way, you can't use someone else's mistakes to justify your own civility - in fact, isn't doing so "disrupting Wikipedia to make a Point"? The issue here is the poor nomination of very notable (see all the SNOW speedy keeps) articles. Do you suggest User:Spike 'em that we should delete 2023–24 Premier League, which would be an identical action to one of those taken? Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do see them as similar. Is a rhetorical re-use of someone else's language really disruptive? If you want to throw guidelines around, then how about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? The PL article for next season has some meaningful content, which the similar Spurs article does not. Consensus is gained by reference to policy and guidelines, not by a simple vote count, and most of the Keeps in the Spurs AfD were just ILIKEIT. Spike 'em (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I have not issue, and never mentioned, the rhetorical re-use. My issue was the unnecessary use of the word "moaning".

Specifically with these "group stage X" articles, are they neccesary before the event actually happens, or at least as there's content for them? We are talking about creating mainspace articles that are almost exactly just straight transclusions of the tables in the main Gold Cup article. Group A for example only says Group A of the 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup will take place from 24 June to 4 July 2023. The group consisted of the United States and three other teams, and then the rest is in the article itself. The group itself isn't independently notable at this time, so I'm unsure why there's such a vehement chastidisation of having it exist as a draft instead until the event happens. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Other references were provided in the AFD - at least in Group D - WP:Articles for deletion/2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D Keep in mind, 2023–24 Serie A and 2023–24 EFL League One were also nominated at the same time - which were even more concerning. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I opened a DRV for 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. Though it's probably in my detriment to mention it here, given most of the current attendees seem to support the deletion! Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Same question has to be asked about the qualifications: 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup qualification 73.168.5.183 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Questions

Where is there a notability guideline that is applicable to season articles about teams? If there isn't a special notability guide, I will use general notability, which is a stringent standard.

Where is there a notability guideline for CONCANAF group play articles?

The best way to persuade a reviewer not to draftify an article or nominate it for deletion is to show a notability guide— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean NSEASONS? Though Onel has been editing long enough in the Football project to be aware of this. Though surely with over 100 pervious seasons articles for Hotspur, this isn't about notability - it's about timing. A proper BEFORE is necessary before nomination for deletion - for the Gold Cup articles, this would quickly have yielded numerous articles about the various groups - not surprising once the draw is made, weeks before the competition. Besides, they were all SNOW Speedy Keeps - I don't think notability is at question here. Nfitz (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the season will be notable when it starts doesn't mean that a skeleton article needs to be created 3.5 months before a season starts, when the only known information is one friendly fixture. This was the case with the Spurs season article. A sensible time to create it would be when the Premier League fixture comes out (in June?), and they've actually done some squad transfers too, which could be added to articles. Creating almost empty articles months in advance seems to be a sportswide issue on Wiki, but doing so doesn't help readers at all, if there's almost no information on the articles created. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that - The Spurs 2023/24 article was a pointless load of empty and incomplete tables with practically no useful information at all. It should have been in Draft space ready to move to mainspace when there was actually some usable data about the season. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I agree with you, that's how to use wikipedia correctly, but with the Spurs article there was one already in draft space and a different version in main space. I just felt the AfD wasn't really needed and wasting peoples time. It's peoples choice of words that bug me out. @Spike 'em: Generally people say a football season starts first game of the season, but in the news-sphere they start way earlier, friendlies and the summer transfer window starts from 10 June, that's only 44 days away. That's not that far away, so people that say too soon... really shouldn't be doing that. Govvy (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

10 June is probably the right date to create it then, when there is more information. 10 June is still 2 months before the season, but anything before there's decent information is too soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

May/June ... Sticks and stones! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The AfD was only necessary because attempts to draftify were ignored, to stop the edit wars over it. The article should only be started when there is useful verifiable information to add to it: if that is 2 months in advance or 2 days then so be it. I will use TOOSOON wherever I see fit, whether you like it or not. Spike 'em (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is that there was no BEFORE for the AFDs, which were based on the current state of the article, in violation of NEXIST. Independent references have been provided - even for the Tottenham article. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  The sources you have supplied are speculation and unconfirmed rumours: I find it difficult to see what content we could add to the article using them. Spike 'em (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• What about 2023–24 Newport County A.F.C. season and 2023–24 Wrexham A.F.C. season? 73.168.5.183 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• There is also 2023–24 Real Madrid CF season. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Real Madrid is clearly a keep (though if one thinks that a similar top club like Tottenham should have the article deleted, than so should Real Madrid's). Wrexham's article is also a keep, given their recent promotion, and it's very unusual international coverage. Even I think that Newport County is pushing it - and I'm a fan - my family is from Newport! Though looking at the 2022-23 article, I see it was created on April 27, 2022 ... so probably not worth deleting at this point; gosh, I hadn't heard that David Hando had died - that's sad, I knew him - and he was close to my father. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Associação Atlética Batel

Hello! Associação Atlética Batel have changed their name to FC Mariupol, so shouldn't the name be also changed in the according WP article? If yes, then should it be something like FC Mariupol (Brazilian club) or FC Mariupol (Brazil)? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NAMECHANGES; I'd wait a while to see if the new name sticks or if it just a temporary thing. Spike 'em (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The name change should be FC Mariupol (Brazil). Goes with the consensus established at Talk:Aurora FC (Canada)#Requested move 13 July 2020 and Talk:Pacific F.C. (Mexico)#Requested move 20 August 2020 and matches with teams such as Unity FC (Ghana), Unity FC (England), CD Guadalajara (Spain),Altitude FC (Belize), Altitude FC (Canada), Windsor FC (Australia), etc RedPatch (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RM added to the talk page, better to support or oppose it there, no? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the Guardian source, [1] I see no mention of a name change, I see mention of "Mariupol’s kit, crest and logo" will be used by AA Batel, to honour the fallen club. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Valeri Zykov and Nikolay Kiselyov

Would someone from FOOTY mind taking a look at Valeri Zykov and Nikolay Kiselyov (footballer)? They've been assessed as mid-importance for FOOTY, but they're basically unsourced stubs with a few sentences at the moment that are at risk of ending up at AFD given the new guidelines created not too long ago at WP:NSPORT. Perhaps there are Russian reliable sources that can be used to help clarify the subjects' notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Both appear to be significant figures in Soviet football. I've added references to their Great Russian Encyclopedia entries, and that should satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC. Hopefully someone more proficient in Russian can flesh these out. Jogurney (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these Jogurney. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C.

The PROD on this article has been removed, but I thought before I send it to AfD, I would ask here what everyone thinks of it. Yes, the result was big and it was a record defeat for Manchester United, but it's not a league record and hasn't had the level of coverage you would expect from matches we already have articles for. Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C., for example, has had loads of coverage over the last 10+ years despite it not being a record scoreline. Would anyone be opposed to deletion, without prejudice to re-creation once the game receives sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG? – PeeJay 16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it has received lasting coverage yet. Spike 'em (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Send it to AfD. Not a league record. I would AfD the 8-2 as well to be honest. We shouldn't really have individual game articles for anything except record scores (and by that I don't mean a record victory/defeat for one side, that should be in that club's own articles. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can have articles about any match as long as WP:GNG is satisfied, they don't have to be finals or record scorelines. Unfortunately, that's just not the case with Liverpool's 7-0 (yet). – PeeJay 17:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it meets GNG, as does every single Premier League match. Previews, interviews, commentary and analysis from the UK and indeed many other countries. Articles for most Premier League matches would have better sourcing than millions of other WP articles. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

By that same measure, every regular season NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, Bundesliga, Serie A, etc. contest would meet GNG. Just because something meets GNG doesn't mean it's notable enough for inclusion, a little WP:COMMONSENSE needs to come in to play. While a 7–0 scoreline is indeed very rare, there is nothing particularly notable about this match. If it had been the largest margin of victory in any Premier League match then I would say that is notable enough for its own article, but being "tied for the third-largest margin of victory by any team" is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I just realized the context of the previous comment, which was exactly what I said, just not in so many words. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, you're right. GNG is most likely satisfied for any game, but WP:ROUTINE is definitely one that applies here. – PeeJay 09:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There isn't much in way of content in the article that makes it clear why its notable. Indeed, for example, Arsenal have won a few games 7-0 in the past but we don't have articles on them because they haven't proved any lasting impact or coverage. This article is a fairly ROUTINE affair as 7-0s aren't intrinsically notable. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC) On edit: Indeed it isn't even listed at the High scoring matches list @Jkudlick: mentioned above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

J.League

Hello! I've just converted my original message in a discussion on the article's talk page: any type of advice would be really appreciated!

Oltrepier (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Please contribute to the Move Discussion at National League

There is a move discussion at National League, the USA baseball league page, over moving that to a disambiguation page, it has been dwarfed in page views by the football pages for a number of years. Part of the reason for this move would be to avoid editors trying to find National League (division), National League System and National League (English football) ending up at a baseball page by mistake; as well as there being many other 'National Leagues' around the world. Please contribute either way. Mountaincirque^talk 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque Is this the right link? Oltrepier (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it will be closed in the next day or two I imagine, votes seem to have slowed down now. Mountaincirque^talk 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sofifa

There are a few articles to source Sofifa the height or age of a player. It’s a very useful site for fifa players and has a decent community, but fifa ratings are really not reliable in the slightest. What’s your opinion on having it as a source? Ijustlikefootball (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do they get their data from, and are they reliable, independent, ... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It looks like they just republish information from elsewhere (the game itself?) so if their source is reliable then WP should use that source directly. If that source IS the game then I'm pretty certain that has been ruled out in the past. Spike 'em (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the data is copied directly from the game, and there’s only one admin, so yes it is basically the game. Ijustlikefootball (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

When does WP:SPORTCRIT apply

There's a discussion underway at WT:Notability (sports)#Interplay of NSPORTS and SPORTCRIT of when to apply WP:SPORTCRIT - in particular the bit that says "does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". Nfitz (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Raul Moreira

A Portuguese player with one international cap, (at AfD) does anyone know anything about him? Again no questioning the article, how he became an international player for Portugal, his club career, etc. People don't like the tough questions. I had a bit of a look but didn't do so well. Maybe other people can help save it from deletion. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Far as I can see, he was part of the C.F. Os Belenenses squad, when they finished 3rd, 3rd and 4th while at the club. So must have been a good enough player to get a call up. Played only an away friendly against Brazil for the one cap. I count four delete votes and no one interested in the save! lol. Govvy (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No matter how interested I am in saving the article, there is nothing I can find which suggests it belongs in mainspace. There is a blogpost (doesn't count towards notability per WP:SPS), and some database entries. I also noticed that other Portuguese footballers from a similar timeframe do get online significant coverage, so it's problematic that nobody is finding anything for this footballer. Jogurney (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that a lot of old links deprecate and aren't archived, so they get lost in time. I'm sure references existed at some point, there's just no way to prove it unless you can navigate archives. Ortizesp (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season

Can anybody find coverage for this Ukranian First League team? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on two categories

I was hoping to get some input regarding a two abnormal categories I noticed recently, and whether or not they are worth keeping. The categories in question are:

• Category:Ukrainian footballers banned from domestic competitions: I've never seen any other "banned" footballer categories, so I am unsure whether it is truly necessary.
• Category:Albanian footballers from North Macedonia: Though named strangely, the scope of the category is "Macedonian footballers of Albanian descent". Looking through the football category tree, there are no other triple intersections for footballers by nationality and ethnic/national descent.

Thoughts? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't much value in the first category, and think the second should be renamed to match convention. Ortizesp (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ortizesp - delete the first, rename the second to the wider Category:North Macedonian sportspeople of Albanian descent, which is a established category type as seen at Category:Sportspeople by country of descent and subcats. GiantSnowman 20:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

To make a goal

Is it possible in English to use the verb "to make" to say that a player scored a goal (eg. The forwards made a goal.), as it is in various Romance languages? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense in English - the terminology is 'to score a goal'. GiantSnowman 19:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Made a goal would be more likely to describe a piece of skill that setup a goal for another player. I could see that you may say a player "made a goal out of nothing" or something similar, but certainly not without any qualification. Spike 'em (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Taylor (footballer, born 1902)

Can anyone find coverage for this draftified player with 160 Football League appearances? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Also Draft:Joe Grierson, Draft:Peter Fisher (footballer born 1900s), Draft:Arthur Robertson (Scottish footballer) and Draft:Willie Wylie, each draftified, look like they have notability potential. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Feel free to move back to mainspace - the editor in question has a history of poor decisions, including unilaterally draftifying notable articles and nominating notable articles at AFD. GiantSnowman 18:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sergio Pacheco

Does anyone know of any coverage about this Chilean footballer? It's a pre-internet player so, to be honest, I have no clue where to look. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Back issues of El Mercurio can be searched from 2000 forward at emol.com. I found nothing on this footballer, which may mean he died before 2000, or hasn't been involved in football after retiring. BDFA.com.ar typically has database entries for most South American footballers from the pre-internet era who were internationals or played in major professional leagues, yet they have nothing on Pacheco Reyes. I don't think we'll find anything, and I'm not sure he was notable while he was playing either. Jogurney (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I always presumed that most Olympic footballers would have some coverage. From following the match reports at Football at the 1984 Summer Olympics, though, it looks like he was an unused sub in all 4 of Chile's games. Maybe he's the one Olympic footballer in that squad that just isn't notable then. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Four-team Supercoppa Italiana

A few months ago, Lega Serie A expanded the tournament (just to have more money) from two to four teams just like La Liga had done with the Spanish Super Cup in 2020. Therefore, I had moved the 2023 Supercoppa Italiana page to 2023–24 Supercoppa Italiana but Foghe has reverted my edit and said it was "unrelated". Why would it be as such when the Supercoppa Italiana format is the same as Spanish Supercup? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The revert makes sense to me: it kees the naming convention in line with the previous editions of the same trophy. Expanding from 2 to 4 teams does not change this. Spike 'em (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is calling it the 2023 Supercoppa Italiana when all the matches will be played in 2024. – PeeJay 07:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I should have read the details rather than assuming. All the recent editions suffer from the same problem too... Spike 'em (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all the editions from 2020 Supercoppa Italiana onwards should be moved. The title "2020 Supercoppa Italiana" makes no sense when it was a one-off match played in 2021..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What about the 2020 gap? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a Supercoppa in 2019 and then the next one was in 2021. That's just how it was. We shouldn't give inaccurate titles to articles to avoid "gaps" in lists...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Take that up with the Italian FA, who decided on this nonsense! Spike 'em (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Two Supercoppas were played in 2019. What do we do? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Where does the habit of using biennial format in titles of the Spanish Super Cup come from? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this good enough for an article?

Is Draft:Maria Edwards (footballer) good enough for an article. I found sources to prove Maria Edwards (footballer) played for Blackburn Rovers and scored and found articles to prove Maria Edwards has scored in the Frauen-Bundesliga. Surely that is enough to be noteworthy? Dwanyewest (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not her documented achievements that are important, it is whether she has garnered significant coverage in reliable, independent sources independent. I'm not sure that the sources on the article count as this, as most of them are from her current or former employers. Spike 'em (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Club season notability

I asked about this a while back and didn't really get a straight answer. Which clubs should have season articles? It's supposed to be judged by notability, but that can be quite difficult to gauge. Which leagues should have them and which shouldn't? Ijustlikefootball (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The only justification is if the season has enough coverage for WP:GNG. Season articles should not be created just for the sake of having them, rather that the news coverage about that season would be too much to be placed in the main club article and would cause it to be too long, so a split into a separate season article is necessary. There are no general rules other than that. It's completely possible for one season of a club to be not notable enough for an article while the next season for the same club is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, that's quite difficult to tell sometimes and I am a bit rubbish at doing basically anything notability-related. Would Fluminense's current season be notable, say, considering it is according to the IFFHS part of the best league in the world?

Ijustlikefootball (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't judge notability if you haven't provided any sources yet. You're better off just creating the article, sourcing it as best you can, and letting the community judge whether notability is satisfied after the fact. It's not an exact science. Just don't take it personally if any content you create ends up getting deleted, it usually isn't personal. – PeeJay 08:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can get it to something like 2023 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season, where it shows a prose summary of the main events of the season, then I can see why a season article would be warranted. Try to add a season summary with a variety of reliable Brazilian news sources to User:Ijustlikefootball/2023 Fluminense FC season, like the Flamengo season does, then ask someone to review it before moving it to mainspace if you're worried about it being picked up for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea! I really don’t want to spend a really long time making an article only for it to be deleted.

Ijustlikefootball (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Displaying ladder from league on club season article

Some of the season articles of clubs in the 2022–23 Belgian Pro League display the ladder using {{:2022–23 Belgian First Division A|showteam=CHA}}. This results in showing the ladder for the regular season, the ladder & results for play-offs I, and the ladder & results for play-offs II. For a team like Charleroi, who didn't make play-offs, there is no need to display the ladder & results of play-offs in their club season article. And even a team that made play-offs, like Cercle Brugge, don't need to display both play-offs but rather only their own. (this I started writing in the afternoon)

Since writing that, I've discovered I can use {{:2022–23 Belgian First Division A|transcludesection=Regular season|showteam=CHA}} to display only the league ladder, so Charleroi is solved, but for clubs that made the play-offs, I am not managing to find the way to display only the ladder of play-offs I or only the ladder of play-offs II. Any ideas?

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You should be able to use |transcludesection=Play-offs I or |transcludesection=Play-offs II to get only the tables for each play-off. Transclusions of the regular season table should be updated with |transcludesection=Regular season, otherwise all three tables will be displayed. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I recall the consensus was to not include these by-round positions because it has minimal value, what with teams often reaching the relevant "rounds" often weeks apart from each other. Seasider53 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to Seasider53. I'm talking about including the league ladder and I've never heard of consensus not to include it. --SuperJew (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the position-by-round table is right there, and likely in most every current-season article. It’s always impressive what gets discussed endlessly but is never enforced. The same useless info just gets copied and pasted from the previous season, and we have to waste time scrolling past it. Seasider53 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't know. I didn't add it and that's not what I asked about. If you think it doesn't belong by some consensus, feel free to make the change. --SuperJew (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I was sure I tried that before posting here and it didn't work but now it does. Welp anyways thank you very much :) --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

OPTA's tweets

Can the account's tweets be considered a reliable source? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. – PeeJay 09:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding honours & winter transfers

If a player played at least 1 game for club X and the player left the club during midseason (winter transfer) for club Y and club X later won a title (e.g. league title), do we or do we not place that trophy under the players Honours section which contains all of the players individual and team honours? Croxyz (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do reliable sources confirm if a player has the honour? That is the only thing that matters. GiantSnowman 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, could you provide examples for reliable sources regarding player honours? I mostly edit players who play in the Croatian league meaning that reliable sources are harder to find than for bigger leagues, such as the Premier League. Croxyz (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Soccerway is usually OK, otherwise it might be a club or league source. GiantSnowman 18:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't Soccerway list honours for players even if they're ineligible? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

and if they make zero appearences too. even the clubs saying they won it apaprnelty doesnt count as per wayne rooney and lionel messi a few weeks ago.Muur (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Dean Smith

For interest, a requested move discussion is currently ongoing on the Dean Smith talk page as I see GiantSnowman has participated in the previous RM. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Coverage of Pakistani football?

Is it me, or is the football in Pakistan not very well covered? From the looks of the season page for the Pakistan Premier League they seem to be having a lot of trouble. The top league suspended multiple times. I was having a go at updating Safiullah Khan which sits at AfD. But it's hard work for sure to find good sources. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The cancelling of the 2021/22 season might be releated to the FIFA ban, which was lifted later. (ban, lifted). But it seems like the PFF still is not fully functional, see. -Koppapa (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Honours again

Before I do a bunch more reverts of edits like this one, can I just confirm that in the opinion of the project, finishing third is not an "honour"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree - I've also been removing the same edits from the same IP on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 09:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Surely some prose should be added to Harvey Lintott for helping the club finishing 3rd, promoted. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Winning the play-offs gets to be included on player's articles regardless of if they finish in one of positions 3-7. I am aware many players who finished 3rd in the league have the play-off honour but I also don't see finishing 3rd will be an honour. Also seeing the Soccerway profile for e.g. Son Heung-Min, they don't list "third place" as a trophy for the Premier League so Wikipedia should reflect that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realise clubs got promoted from the Premier League. What trophy do clubs get for finishing as runners-up in cup finals?--EchetusXe 14:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, they do get a trophy and medals for winning the play-off final (the teams in which can have finished as low as seventh), but this is a simple promotion, which should probably just be in the prose. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please help me for Draft:Yasushi Kawakami

Excuse me. Please help me. Draft:Yasushi Kawakami (ja:川上靖) is the first article I created. But it has not been accepted. Could you improve this draft? He is the first Japanese footballer to play in Argentine league and the technical director of the Argentina women's national football team from 1999 to 2012. Thanks, Jumping Frog Man (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the editor's comment, and agree that the Clarín (Argentine newspaper) source is excellent and in-depth coverage. I believe the Noticias Argentinas (via InfoSur Diario) source is also in-depth coverage. Was that one also present when the article was submitted for approval? Jogurney (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I added "InfoSur" source after the submission was declined. This is the version when the submission was declined. Jumping Frog Man (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I expect the article will be approved based on the current sourcing. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Now in mainspace: see Yasushi Kawakami. Well done, everyone. Paul W (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Does Draft:Michalis Papatheodorou meet the notability criteria for sports / people

Hello, BEN917 and Manos H. Scorer have been working on the draft about Michalis. Does this meet the notability criteria for footballer? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria to be honest Manos H. Scorer (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

which of the sources on the page do you think count as SIGCOV? I can't read greek, but going by Google translate most are either database entries or passing mentions. Spike 'em (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And as to the main question, I think all the appearance-related football entries in NSPORT got torched in the clear-out last year. Spike 'em (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing of truncated national football team names in links

Has there been a discussion concerning the phrasing of national team names when concerning the truncated link such as "Spain national football team". would the published truncated link be "Spain national team" or "Spanish national team"? It is common for "Spain" to appear alone at times and at other times "Spain national team" or "Spanish national team".2603:8000:D300:D0F:C59A:DF0A:5CA8:7328 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It depends on context. You definitely wouldn't say "Spanish national team" at any time, but you can say "Spain" or "the Spain national team" when it makes sense to. – PeeJay 07:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it depends on context, but I'd question your 'definitely wouldn't say "Spanish national team" at any time'. The Guardian, the BBC, and The Independent (to name but a few) all do... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason we say Spain rather than Spanish is because someone representing Spain isn't necessarily Spanish. Using Spain implies that the team is representing the country whereas Spanish could imply everyone on the team was Spanish. I thought there was guidance on this somewhere but I've not be able to find it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say using the adjectival form is very common as well, and doesn't really suggest everyone is Spanish; it's being used as "Spanish national team" = "national team belonging to Spain". Even UEFA use it regularly; [2] [3] [4] Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) To be fair, someone representing Spain is necessarily Spanish, to the extent of holding a passport of that country. I could understand an out-of-context confusion between something like "the Spain goalkeeper" and "the Spanish goalkeeper" along those lines, but I think it's stretching it a bit to think that confusion was likely in context of a national team.

I'd be happier if we weren't contractually committed to the opening sentence wording "who plays for [[Template F.C.]] and the [[Spain national football team|Spain national team]]", and could put something clearer to the reader, and maybe closer to plain English, like "who plays club football for [[Template F.C.]] and international football for [[Spain national football team|Spain]]". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the repetition, obviously.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking sporting country is different to nationality. Someone might play for the Welsh national football team, but therefore a British citizen.

The actual question posed is (forgive me if I'm wrong) that can we subsitute "Spain" for the "Spain national football team". This is very context specific. Saying "Spain held the tournament" is a little ambigious, as you could argue that it means that the nation hosted the tournament, and that also the team hosted the tournament (in this context, I suppose it is both). I do think when we link the term, and on first usage we should always spell it out, even if it's only to avoid WP:EASTEREGG links. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

In that example you use, the English is correct "who plays club football for "[[Template F.C.]] and international football for [[Spain national football team|Spain]]".

Here is an example where it is grammatically correct to have the nationality used - "Example Player is a former [[Spain national football team|Spanish]]" footballer Daxion (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be very helpful. All players who are from Spain would be Spanish footballers. You play for Spain. You shouldn't link the term Spanish like that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - definitely don't link like that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

To play for Spain or any other country, FIFA require the individual / player to hold a passport of the country they are playing for, whether or not they were born in the territory of that country. Example Eusebio was born in Mozambique when it was a colony of Portugal. He automatically was Portuguese. Diego Costa was born in Brazil, therefore a Brazilian by birth. He opted to play for Spain.

"Costa is a dual citizen of Brazil and Spain. He played twice for Brazil in 2013, before declaring his desire to represent Spain, having been granted Spanish citizenship in September that year." Is Costa Brazilian or Spanish? This is an Encyclopaedia in the English language and therefore English grammar rules, IMO, should apply for readability purposes. The sentence has to make sense in English. Daxion (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's true for the present day but that hasn't always been the case. For example, Australia regularly called up British-born players well into the 1970s who weren't Australian citizens. Hack (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is probably an ENGVAR situation. In the United States, it is common to see "Canadian/Mexican/etc. national team", but the use of demonyms for European countries is mixed. SounderBruce 04:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sporting Lisbon

On 2022–23 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season; So I added season overview section and originally wrote Sporting Lisbon, however Lisbon was removed, with this edit [5], comment being sporting lisbon is not their name however it is the clubs name, if you goto Sporting CP it clearly says or as Sporting Lisbon in other countries. On this edit ([6]), I added it back stating Sporting Lisbon is more accurate, don't know why Lisbon bit keeps getting removed. It's like removing Manchester from Manchester United! Didn't released it got removed, until I saw an IP add it back to be removed again. [7], not to mention the really dodgy edit by Mwiqdoh removing this at Sporting CP article, [8].

To me this is getting silly and it feels like is Mwiqdoh is borderline WP:OWNing the article!! Be helpful to have someone else sort out this issue. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sporting Lisbon shouldn't be used in links, the article name is Sporting CP so just use that. The note and refs should remain in the lead of the article though (in my opinion), as they clearly state that it is not the official name and is considered offensive by some supporters (very easily offended ones it seems), but is in frequent use in foreign media, so that all deserves an explanation. Those removing it for those 'offensive' reasons are doing so against both consensus and logic. Perfectly valid to include a common misconception, including something that CD causes annoyance, in articles as long as the issue is explained (and demonstrated to be something worth explaining) in sources, which this is. Crowsus (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I don't understand, what are you calling it offensive? As what does "CD" causes annoyance about? Or do you mean CP? Also, Sporting is a disambiguation page, hence why adding Lisbon is far more accurate. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, CD was just a typo, ignore that. But don't link to Sporting either, use Sporting CP! Crowsus (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using Sporting Lisbon instead of a piped link to Sporting CP (as per WP:NOT BROKEN). This is also an ENGVAR issue, and that the usual name in British English is Sporting Lisbon. Spike 'em (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The article is at Sporting CP, there’s no need to pipe it to anything else. – PeeJay 21:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of English-speakers don't know the club as anything other than Sporting Lisbon, so a pipe is perfectly appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

People aren't stupid, can we please stop pretending they are... – PeeJay 11:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We're not saying they're stupid, we're saying they're more likely to recognise the name by which they know the club. This is precisely one of the reasons why we have pipes and hatnotes. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

and redirects, which are preferred over pipes! Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO the common name of the team in British media is Sporting Lisbon, so why not make it even easier for those with a passing interest in the subject? Spike 'em (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So your opinion is the only one that matters? If not then why are you already making the revert before a consensus is made? Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Sporting Lisbon" is overwhelmingly the common name in English sources - [9] - so that's how it should be titled. Just as we have Inter Milan, rather than Internaionale or anything else. For historical reasons, it's never been possible to find consensus to actually move the page to "Sporting Lisbon", as should happen per WP:COMMONNAME, but at the very least it's wrong to revert editors in individual articles for using this correct name.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sporting CP is unambiguous, is the article title, and is in sufficiently common use to be the article title, so use that. Crowsus (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Revoked honours?

Hey.

Since the Calciopoli scandal caused Juventus to no longer have the Serie A title in 2006, related articles like Zlatan Ibrahimović shouldn't have the title listed (even as revoked) in the honour section. Because, the section is supposed to consist of only legitimate honors. Revoked honours ultimately don't count as anything.

Ae245 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Soccerway trophies section which is reference 441 does not include "2005/2006". For the previous season, the Soccerway pages for the Juventus players who played in that season (including Zlatan) should not reveal the "2004/2005" in the Serie A part in that Soccerway section since I have spotted on the Wikipedia page was not awarded to anyone at all. I'm inclined to remove them on all affected pages, like what the article of David Trezeguet currently shows. If anyone knows how to contact Soccerway, they should be notified that the 2004-05 season had no champions trophy awarded and these player's trophies section on Soccerway may include "2004/2005" in the Serie A part where in reality the trophy was not awarded to anyone. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving them in as asterisked with a note explaining the honours were revoked.--EchetusXe 08:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, were players stipped of the title too, or just the club? The FA surely didn't knock on the players doors to recollect their medels. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Check out Lance Armstrong. Doesn't need to be that involved as it is a couple of titles with one club but they are there for Armstrong, and he was individually punished with the revoked honours rather than a club he played for.--EchetusXe 12:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

i guess you could see it like any seasons that were made void...the players still played in those games and scored would be harsh to say they didnt.Muur (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Govvy/Lycurgus Burrows

I started an article for a very old footballer, but I've done it off of one source. He played for Sheffield United and Arsenal, I was wondering if anyone had any sources for him to add? Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Michael Joyce "Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939", he was only on trial at Sheffield United, and made no league appearances. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Inviting to AfD (on football rivalry articles)

Asking all experienced editors of football project, please help to reach a consensus on AfD of these two article China–India football rivalry and India–Pakistan football rivalry which I have nominated. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Phuthego Modipe - Botswanan former footballer

Greetings, for Phuthego Modipe article, in April of 2022 I added tags for "Missing information" and "Orphan". Since then, I did searching & added a minor Ref & EL info. More content would be most helpful, especially DOB so article can be linked to a YYYY in association football, Births section. Otherwise, should this one go to Proposed deletion? JoeNMLC (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this article may need a proposed deletion discussion. I don't think there would be enough notable credit for inclusion to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move to drop dots and A.S.D.s in club names of football clubs in Italy, see Talk:A.C. Milan. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, talk about naming conventions out the window, I can't be bothered to tell you how wrong that open move request is! Govvy (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You may also experience slower typing than normal as well as I have edited that talk page to experience that. I have never seen a move request with that many entries before. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"Honours" heading for medals on Template:Infobox football biography

I've opened a discussion here regarding the heading used for national team medals on {{Infobox football biography}}, would appreciate some input. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"Men's" being added to national youth teams

Editor @Helpfulwikieditoryay has taken it upon themselves to change virtually all U-17 and U-19 men's national teams to include "men's" in the immediate lead, seemingly after lengthy discussion advocating for England national football team's title to be changed to include men as well. Given that the women's team specifically have women in their titles and articles, it seems like an unnecessary specification since the articles are obviously about the men. Example can be seen here adding "men's" to Sweden national under-17 football team despite Sweden women's national under-17 football team existing. Has there been previous discussion on this and does some consensus exist I have missed to change these en masse as this editor has done? TylerBurden (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It's important to understand these edits have nothing to do with the discussion on title changes on the England men's page, and I was surprised you thought they were connected. If I thought they were connected, I would have contacted the England men's page to ask. I made these edits to the youth pages after I was editing pages of multiple individual players, for example Erin Cuthbert. She played in U17 and U19, and I wanted to make links to youth teams she played against in major tournaments. It was a huge hassle for me to be looking up U19 women's teams, and despite typing in women, Wikipedia gave me the men's teams. I was surprised to see the word men was nowhere to be found on the youth pages. The senior team pages state it's the men's team in the first sentence (which like you said earlier, is already controversial, because it should be in the title, but that is NOT what I was concerned with right now). I added the gender of the team to the pages I was linking, for example Finland. This seemed like a common sense uncontroversial move, because as someone who was just trying to find the women's page, the lack of gender anywhere in the article made it difficult, and I knew others would appreciate me making it easier for them. The gender of the team is practically the most important thing you need to know, and it's not even mentioned. If I thought it was going to be even slightly controversial I would have asked. Then I realized I need to add the gender to other teams as well to make it consistent. This is not a "crusade." I was just trying to do some simple research, and the lack of gender turned a simple thing into a pain, and then I spent the effort making all the teams consistent. We can debate all day about if the gender of the men's team matters, but reality is this makes Wikipedia very difficult to use. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As one of those frustrated with the multi-threaded discussions on the England page, this does not surprise me! I know of no such consensus, and would revert these bold page moves. Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not too preclude a full discussion on whether this is warranted, but clear consensus is needed to do so, and the pages should be moved back until this happens. Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The bolded text should match the title of the article, though I do not see an issue with instead adjusting the lead to say "represents <country> in men's international football" or similar. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk · contribs), please let's make this the central discussion and not on several talk pages. Kante4 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a crusade. I've fixed this on a few of the items where they have added "men's" in the bold part of the article (WP:BOLDAVOID) but they've done so many, it's going to take a concerted effort. I've also given them a final warning regarding this, it's clear they have no intention of getting a consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Helpfulwikieditoryay, STOP! You've created another five topics across five more articles with the exact same argement. Please stop and discuss it in one place. We require you to have the competency not to create discussions in so many places.

Have one discussion to see if you have consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we need one centralised discussion/RM about whether men's should be added to (youth) national football teams or not. Although they aren't the only user trying to unilaterally add men's to articles (have seen a couple of other users moving non-football sports articles to add men's to the title). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

They are definitely correct that there needs to be mention of "men's / boy's" somewhere at the start of the articles, and possibly a hatnote linking to the (possibly non-existent) female team. Spike 'em (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If the women's team doesn't have an article, a hatnote is not needed. The purpose of a hatnote is to direct to other articles, if the women's team article doesn't exist, then a hatnote doesn't serve that purpose. And adding the same talkpage edit to multiple articles as they are doing is just WP:POINTy and incompetent. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that stating they represent the nation at men's football is suitable for prose, but adding it to the bolded part of the article isn't suitable, nor is creating a talk page item on every article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Helpfulwikieditoryay Stop WP:BLUDGEONING across numerous articles and participate in this centralized discussion, if you are going to gain consensus for your edits, it will be here. TylerBurden (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the rest of the "crusade" as it was put above, not only were these edits made en masse without discussion or consensus, but they were done sloppily as can be seen here. While reverting I noticed the same editor had added some notes on top of the articles clarifying which team it is (which I don't have a problem with) but even on those made the same edits despite the note. TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm impressed I only made one typo in several hours of work. I don't know what a single typo has to do with the discussion about precision on articles. As I was editing, I was correcting other people's typos along the way. I'm not going to remember which nations had mistakes, but I fixed it while editing, so I hope in your reversions you didn't erase that. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've never heard of anyone asking for a consensus to make a one word change to the body of an article. I'll try to see if I should ask next time. I just left the topic of changing titles alone, because while I saw consensus seemed to be in favor of changing them, one editor shut down the discussion, so I just let it go. This is not about title changes. This is about articles that do not state the gender of the team anywhere in the article. All the senior national teams at the very least say it's the men's team. The junior teams do not. Bold text and the title of the article are very often different. Bold text often clarifies the article, using a person's middle name, showing an abbreviation, etc. I don't know if you're aware, but because these articles are very imprecise and do not state which team they're talking about, search engines will give you the wrong article if you search for the women's team. And then because it doesn't even say men's team, people will read the article thinking it's the women's team and have all the wrong info. This is a horribly sloppy problem that should be fixed as soon as possible. It'd be nice if the titles could simply state which team it is, but that's not even what this was about. I just wanted it to state which team it is ANYWHERE in the article. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You are referring to Google Knowledge Graph, which doesn't quite work the way you think it does (it pulls data from a series of locations). We are unaffiliated with it, and have no requirement to have articles written in such a way that would help them.

Thank you for (finally) discussing this here, rather than creating talk page messages on every article - it's very disruptive behaviour. I actually agree that the lede should mention both the age and gender of the competition being held, just that we should follow both COMMONNAME for article titles and WP:BOLDAVOID for boldened links in the lede. My suggestion for these articles would be say:

The England national under-21 football team is an association football team that represents England at the men's under-21 level. (bit of a surprise to me was that we don't have an article for under-21s outside of a poor article at Youth system.)

This would avoid us giving undue weight to a team that isn't called that (especially over the history of the team), but also be specific as to what they are and what they do. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The official names of the teams are not what Wikipedia currently has as their titles. For example the official name of the England men's national football team is actually just called "England". (The organization says just "England" is the official name of the women's team as well.) So the fact that the Wikipedia title is England national football team is already not the common name. We add "national football team" to specify which England it is (not the country or the band). I believe if we were going by common name, we'd have to use parenthesis and title it "England (national football team)". Specifying it's the national football team in the title makes sense, but it's just as crucial to specify it's the men's team. Men and football are the two most important points here. So going by common name, it would be "England (men's national football team)". Or we can just drop the parenthesis for easier reading. As far as Tyler Burden showed me, the names of the youth teams are the same. There is no such thing as "Norway national under-19 football team" because it's actually just called Norway U19. If we are going to add all these extra words (national, football, team) to the Wikipedia title that are not part of the official name, men is a very important word to have in the title as well. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this following IP address needs blocking

[10].

Basically, this person (most likely this one) opts to waste their time by just to put an underscore in an infobox parameter, which is obviously pointless and therefore some of the watchlists we have includes this IP address with that same type of editing. Presumably this discussion has been ignored despite three different users contributing once to it. The amount of edits made by the IP address/es in recent days probably just adds to the annoyance of some editors with the bot edits seen on their watchlists already.

Similar IP addresses were already reported here but I should not continue to clutter that page with all these IP addresses to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

mass cat changes

What's with the massive category changes, it's really annoying on my watchlist. Will it stop soon? Govvy (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think its because there was a discussion to move the generic football categories into men and women. Personally I think that's a bad move (and I don't see what the point was) because there's nothing wrong with having men and women together in a generic category rather than segregating. I do worry the bot is going to at some point make a mistake and put a women's player in the men's category (or vice versa). But I guess we'd need another consensus to reverse it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The women were always in their own separate category and were never in a generic category along with the men. The change that is spamming everyone's watchlist was to simply add "men's" to the name of the other category for consistency (previously we had, for example, "English football goalkeepers" and "English women's football goalkeepers".....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: It seems counterproductive to me. It would have been better to just merge the women's categories into the generic one in my opinion but I accept that was the consensus. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion at CfD was open for over a month, not many decided to comment on it though. As for the watchlist, bot edits can easily be filtered out: see Help:Watchlist#Options. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The RFC had slightly more people favouring adding men's categories rather than de-gendering the categories. Personally, I don't see a need to split by men and women, but that does seem to be the weak consensus to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well the split from the RfC was backed by the category guidelines at WP:CATGENDER: As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition.. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC was sufficiently advertised. I agree with you that the positional categories didn't need splitting, since football positions are the same regardless of gender (there may be minor differences, but a male left-back will broadly play the same as a female left-back). – PeeJay 10:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The "splitting" is not a recent thing. Category:Women's association football midfielders, for example, was created in 2015. Prior to this the women don't seem to have been in positional categories at all. Maybe a separate women's category should not have been created and all the female midfielders should just have been put into the existing category along with the men (which has existed since 2005!), but it is what it is. All that has changed recently is that the men's categories have been renamed to add the word "men's", no categories have been split or players moved around between categories..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I use this method to keep an eye on pages made by human editors only - but then sometimes an edit made by the last person does get followed by an edit which changes the name of the category. From this discussion, 2-1 for support does not seem that convincing, plus the proposer which makes it 3-1 actually. The information on the user page of the bot operating this task has not been updated so I cannot say when this will finish. I'll pray it will be soon. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a CFD about this, which was listed at WP:FOOTYDEL for weeks - so if you didn't join the discussion, don't moan when changes you don't like are made. GiantSnowman 21:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

National team callups in season articles

In response to some back-and-forth with Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk · contribs).

There seems to be several MLS season articles that used large tables to list every national team callup (not just appearance, but merely being called up to camp) for players during a given year (e.g. 2022 Chicago Fire FC season#National team callups); often, these tables have no citations, a ton of flags and symbols, or other issues. I see these as excessive and using up a lot of screen space when they could simply be mentioned in prose (as seems to be done on higher-quality season articles). Is there consensus to remove or fix these? SounderBruce 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Good god, that's overkill at its finest. Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree, overkill and unnecessary. Get rid. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A.C. Milan RM

There is a discussion to move all Italian football clubs from e.g. 'A.C. Milan' to 'AC Milan' - please see Talk:A.C. Milan#Requested move 18 May 2023. GiantSnowman 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 UEFA European Under-17 Championship squads

Hello! I just wanted to report that this page likely needs to be completed, as many squads are still missing entirely...

I'll do my part by adding the remaining paragraphs, as well as Italy's final squad.

Oltrepier (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My question would be this: why do we need squad articles for these under-17 championships? Most of the players are not currently notable, so I don't see the value of these squad lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 Many of them will get notable as time goes by, though: last year's list alone provides some good examples. Plus, I think it's good to keep a general record of the squads involved, especially when sources are fairly easy to find and manage. Oltrepier (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, Honours

Obviously this was a major course for debate a few months ago, mostly because of my arrogance and ignorance on now we conduct this. Just think it would be good to get a really concrete format for how every club structures honours (maybe apart from the biggest in the world: Real Madrid, Man United, Liverpool, Barcelona etc) I have been editing some articles honours sections to what I thought was clearer but again I realise I definitely shouldn’t have done that without gaining consensus first. Last time I had no idea what I was doing and attempted to close the debate early (stupidly) and I ended up pissing everyone off.

Maybe like last time providing multiple layout ideas for honours sections and seeing what everyone likes the best? Thanks guys. (Sorry about last time by the way) Joseph1891 (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• If you realised you should have gained consensus first, why have you been continuing to try to change dozens of articles to your own preferred format, including inserting false information about tiers (and even trying to change the MOS)? Number 57 13:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah I did apologise mate, not talking about the tier stuff here, as you never provided evidence for that. Found mutiple sources staiting that there were tiers for non league before 1980, you just seem to hate that there are tiers in non league football idk. The MOS was in-accurate as no club uses tables, and when I asked people a few months ago no one liked the idea of them. Joseph1891 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    • You've literally been changing honours section formats up until posting this. As for the tier stuff, the FA reviewer pointed out to you that they did not agree with your claims. Number 57 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah, talked to him afterwards (a few months ago) and showed him some sources, and he found it interesting, he said he didn't realise that there was that much evidence for tiers. You've yet to provide any source whatsoever saying there's not, and you're pretty much the only editor that's given me quite that much grief for it. Sorry man, but I cannot really be asked to debate that now, you're bringing up a seperate discussion. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just 2 possible new rules to follow as well? Of course these are all just suggestions, feel free to disagree.

• 1) Only literal physical trophies are counted. Quite a big change and new radical idea I know!

So that would include Play-off winners, Championship titles, Winning cups etc. But would not include finshing runners up, 2nd, 3rd, 4th place promotion.

• 2) The number of times an honour is won (e.g. 7) is only stated if the club in question has one that particular trophy 5 or more times.

So not putting a (1) Before Leicester City's Premier League title.

Just some ideas (Hopefully this is clear enough to read and assess) Everyone else is free to come up with more! Joseph1891 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Option 1a League and Cup separated Links present and no bolding Tiers stated	Option 1b League and Cup separated Links and bolding present Tiers stated
League League template (Tier 2) Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template (Tier 3) Play-off winners 2012–11 Cups Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1958–59, 1965-66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96	League League template (Tier 2) Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template (Tier 3) Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1958–59, 1965-66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96
Option 2a League and Cup not separated Links present, no bolding	Option 2b League and Cup not separated Links and Bolding present
League template Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1958–59, 1965-66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96	League template Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1958–59, 1965-66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96
Option 3a League and cup separated No linking or bolding Tiers stated	Option 3b League and cup separated No linking, bolding present Tiers stated
League League template (Tier 2) Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template (Tier 3) Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96	League League template (Tier 2) Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template (Tier 3) Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96
Option 4a League and Cup not separated No linking or bolding	Option 4b League and Cup not separated No linking, bolding present
League template Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96	League template Champions 1960–61, 1990–91 League template Play-off winners 2012–11 Cup template Winners 1958–59 Cup template Winners (6) 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96
Option 5a Bolding present League and cup not separated No linking	Option 5b Bolding present League and cup not separated Links are present
League Name Division One champions 1960–61, 1990–91 Division Two champions 1955–56 League Cup winners 1968–69 FA Plate Winners 1958–59 Fooshire County Cup Winners 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96	League Name Division One champions 1960–61, 1990–91 Division Two champions 1955–56 League Cup winners 1968–69 FA Plate Winners 1958–59 Fooshire County Cup Winners 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Runners up 1940–41, 1996–96
Option 6a The Italian Wiki style Trophy icons are not present	Option 6b The Italian Wiki style Trophy icons are present
Titles League template: 2 1960–61, 1990–91 League template: 1 2012–11 Cup template: 1 1958–59 Cup template: 6 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Best peformances League template runners up: 2 1966–67, 1998–99 League template 3rd place promotion: 1 2016–17	Titles League template: 2 1960–61, 1990–91 League template: 1 2012–11 Cup template: 1 1958–59 Cup template: 6 1950–51, 1959–60, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1973–74, 1975–76 Best peformances League template runners up: 2 1966–67, 1998–99 League template 3rd place promotion: 1 2016–17

• Options 1–4 all include unnecessary tier markers (which would invariably be misused for non-league divisions prior to there being a formal pyramid in place) and count of trophy wins and also seems to be heavily biased towards Premier/Football League clubs. I would propose option 5 for non-league clubs – it makes no sense to me to separate out divisional and cup honours for leagues like the Northern Premier League and makes the list unnecessarily long. Linking should not be a blanket rule, and should be done on a case-by-case basis; if the article is linked already in the article, another link isn't necessary (per MOS:REPEATLINK). If the honours list is the first time a competition or season is mentioned, then it should be linked. Number 57 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Number 57 that looks way better and clearer! Joseph1891 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm beginning to take more of a liking to option 5, though I do believe the names of the competitions and seasons should be linked. I get your idea that adding the tiers may make the section look over cluttered, but I think for readers who know less about the English League System, especailly for non-league and divisions below step 1 and 2, tiers should be present for all clubs.

For someone who doesnt know much about it, how are they meant to know what Division the Western League Division Two is? Or what it was for that matter, as non league divisions have moved around on the pyramid so much over the years, anyway I won't get too into the tier dicussion for now.

Aren't we trying to find a concrete format for the enterity of English Football, not just non-league, football league clubs etc. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with referring to tiers is that deciding what tier a league was many years in the past is often OR. For example, given that when the Southern League was formed in 1894 there was only one club from the whole of the southern half of the country in the Football League, there's an argument that the top division of the Southern League was on a par with at least the Second Division of the Football League and possibly even the First. It certainly wouldn't be accurate to categorise it as "tier 3" simply because it was regional and the FL was ostensibly (but not in meaningful terms) national..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude Agree. So as you're saying the southern league was likely at an even higher level than "tier 3" when it was created in 1894.

Saying that, if nothing is stated, readers will see the southern league link, clink on it, and read that the league is now the 7th tier, giving them the assumption that winning the southern league in 1897 would be the same as winning it now. I made this very mistake only about a year ago. The majority of football fans and Wikipedia readers will not be aware of the ins and outs of the history of the english pyramid and how it has changed over time, particularly for non league, even we are still debating this. Obviously it was a far, far more prestigous trophy back then, there just has to be some way of stating this whether through tiers or not. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In response to Joseph's comments above, I don't believe it is possible to come up with a catch-all solution for honours, because league and non-league honours are quite different due to the numerous in-league honours in non-league. A club in the Northern Premier League might have won the Premier Division, Division One North, Division One West, League Cup, President's Cup and Division One Cup. IMO it makes much more sense to group those under a single Northern Premier League top-level bullet rather than having a separate group of top level bullets for each of the individual honours. As for tiers, (a) prior to the formal start of the pyramid there were no tiers outside the Football League so, as Chris says, this would be WP:OR or simply misleading and (b) the tier of some divisions has changed due to league reorganisations (like the introduction of the Conference North/South, which moved all the leagues below down one tier), so you could end up with a situation where a club has won the Northern Premier League Premier Division twice, but when it was at different tiers. As for "there has to be some way of stating this", you would do this in the body of the article. Not everything has to be explained in a simple honours list. Number 57 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• For EFL/smaller PL sides, I personally prefer option 1A/B. I think when possible we should include the tier to make it easier for new readers. For non-League clubs, this would be trickier (the former Southern Leagues for example as mentioned). I do believe separating League and Cup honours is far clearer regardless of whether we're talking about League/non-League sides personally. I also prefer linking but I don't think it matters a great deal. As for bolding, I have no preference at all. Michaeldble (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it's unhelpful to readers to separate out divisional and cup honours from the same league. It creates additional (and unnecessary) rows. How does this splitting out of the various league cups the club in question won in the honours section help the reader? I think it's more of a hindrance than an improvement. Number 57 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm mostly coming from an EFL perspective rather than non-League where it makes far more sense. It's very subjective ultimately but I honestly still slightly prefer separating them even in this example for clarity. The EFL ones should definitely be separated though imo Michaeldble (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
      • If you think having the headings "Challenge Cup" and "Challenge Shield" with no reference to which league's cups they are is preferable (which is what has been done in this example), then I suspect you're simply digging in rather than engaging (or simply haven't looked at the example). Number 57 17:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

        Just because I have a different perspective/preference to you doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. I usually deal with EFL pages as I've said so I'm more accustomed to two sections rather than one block of information like this. Unless I'm mistaken, couldn't you just separate league and cup but add 'Northern Premier League Challenge Cup' or something in this example? Michaeldble (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• We don't use the words "champions" and "winners" for players' honours, why should we for clubs? As a reader I would assume the competition listed was won, unless specified ("runner-up" etc.). Leaving out those words would make the listing a lot less cluttered. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

promoted teams are given trophies mate. you get a trophy for coming second in the championship in germany and englandMuur (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh do you? Ok my mistake! Joseph1891 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 5: Simple and effective. As Number57 says, anything that needs explaining like what tier a league is/was or the relationship between league and non-league can be explained in the prose where it is more relevant. Agree as well that links should be on a case-by-case basis to avoid too many unnecessary links to the same thing. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Think the way they do it in Italy looks quite good personally: AC Milan (Serie A), Parma Calcio 1913 (Serie B) , Calcio Lecco 1912 (Serie C) Arezzo (Serie D) Looks as though they have a consistent honours format for clubs up and down the Italian pyramid. Also agree with Robby.is.on comments about why we need to state winners or champions? Think the majority of readers would already assume that the club won the title stated if it were written under the honours section. For trophies that the clubs just missed out on, believe it would be preferable to maybe have a seperate section for best peformances; for runners up 2nd/3rd/4th place promotions. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• It'd be helpful if each example were adjusted to show the layout for a competition with winners and runners-up. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah it would, but just have a check of the 1) rule at the top :) Just an idea, was thinking it would make more sense to have a separate section for best performances. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging: @ChrisTheDude @Michaeldble @Muur @Robby.is.on @Number 57 @Robby.is.on @Stevie fae Scotland @Struway2 @Govvy @Echetus @Koppapa @Pee @Spike 'em

  Any more thoughts guys? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

With regards to Struway's question, in option 5 runners-up would be written out in the same way champions/winners are (although on a separate row if there are both). Number 57 11:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Shall I put runners up examples in? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Was anyone going to carry on with this conversation? Joseph1891 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Egyptian Super Cup#Requested move 6 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Egyptian Super Cup#Requested move 6 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 12:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to continue with the honours dicussion?

Sorry guys, not trying to be annoying, just wasn't sure if anyone wanted to continue the discussion about honours. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, mate, I’d drop the stick. It feels like the discussion has run its course. – PeeJay 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

But I don't know what format is okay, and what everyone likes the best? Joseph1891 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think people stick to set formats, check out the new season articles that will be created shortly, if not already. Seasider53 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so you're basically saying there's not point then? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Draw tables Crystal Ball?

Members of this WikiProject are encouraged to provide input on an ongoing issue related to draw tables at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF). Jalen Folf (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving Page

Hello! Shouldn't moving a page be decided before being moved? I am talking about this article, which was renamed, but no discussion to be moved took place. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Lorry, this seems a little odd. I checked out the user's previous edits, thinking they might lead to a talk page discussion, but there's nothing. @Dev Darshan T. K.: what was the reason for this? - J man708 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not always, but if a move could be considered potentially controversial should be discussed first. I've made moves for things that seemed fairly uncontroversial (ie. removing a middle name from a person's article title), but anything that I deem less straightforward I usually try for a RM. However, given it happened already, we can just default to WP:BRD. The original poster made a Bold move (which is allowed), you disagree and can Revert, and then initiate a talk page discussion (here or the article) for Discuss. Keeps everyone in WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH to try to reach an amicable consensus. RedPatch (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be set to List of men's footballers with the most official appearances with a fixed number of rows, something like 50. If you keep on including people who have made over 1000 appearances, forward years the table will contain more rows than the amount of total goals Erling Haaland has scored when the 2022-23 season closes. Not many Wikipedia articles have tables with dozens of rows which would be very likely to expand quicker than others, and it will be difficult to read especially as the column headers aren't visible when you look down these tables. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Well, it had a more generic name for this, i.e. being able to allow adjusting if the list expanded with too many additions, if needed. The user who made the name change is yet to mention why, by the way. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not so long ago, someone else moved the Cristian Romero (footballer, born 1998) article to the country identifier without consensus or a reason so that was reverted back with the aid of this page being used to let others know the article was moved incorrectly. This 1000 appearances article could also be moved back for the same procedure as Romero's late last month.

Not many footballer related page moves these days gets to be moved and stays as it is without consensus first, hence I started a small discussion on Talk:Taty Castellanos (which I think is resolved). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! The user who made the name change have also been notified via their talk page. Also, I have to mention that I see contributions from them to WP in a period of time after being pinged (by J man708), i.e. seems they ignored the ping, but I suggest waiting for a couple of days to see if there is any input/justification, and then changing it back to the name the article previously had since there was no point made in favour of this new name. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The user who has been pinged and notified on their talk page continues to make edits after @Lorry Gundersen's recent edit about notifying. I see it as unlikely we will get further input/justification on that talk page when I next edit Wikipedia tomorrow. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! @Iggy (Swan): I think we gave Dev Darshan T. K. a reasonable time to add any input regarding the move, but we received none, even though we saw other activity by them in WP, so I have reverted the move. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, annoyingly Dev is talking on other talk pages, so clearly understands this topic is here, but chooses to ignore it. Would be nice if move rights weren't automatically granted to just anyone... - J man708 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages can be done by anyone whose accounts have been 4+ days old and 10+ edits. While these users can move pages without any problems, many people cannot move pages to titles which already exists as redirects or other reasons so a limited group of users can do that.

By the way: if Wikipedia removes the move rights to standard editors, they won't move their own talk pages/pages in their user spaces themselves. Your suggestion would be better suited for moving articles in article and talk spaces only because surely editors would want to continue moving pages from their userspace to article space as editors have done so in the past. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Current Squad - National Teams

Hi all (and @Drat8sub:),

Should the Current Squad section of a national team page be for the previous match squad or can users update with the preliminary squad for the next match, once its been announced?

There have been a couple of reversions on India national football team which is why I'm bringing this up.

Felixsv7 (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There are two sections very precisely written, First, "Current Squad": means the squad that has played recently or announced for upcoming match. Secondly, "Recent callups": means players who are called for NT camps, players who played recently but not in the current squads. The words are as simple as that, I dont know why there needs an explanation from me. One can also check the FA and GA NT articles for reference. Thank you. Please revert your edit. Drat8sub (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, they are precisely written, and since the national team coach has called up a preliminary squad for the next round of fixtures (on the 4th May per the source), that is now the Current Squad and was updated correctly. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

From your words it is clear that you don't have ample knowledge of football. A current team squad is the group of players who are participating in a tournament or a match or just participated in one. Generally the squad consists of 23-26 players, rest are call ups for NT camps. The section is "Curent squad", I am afraid you have poor understanding of footballing terms, please go through term and meanings, then go through NT MOS and ask experienced editors here for suggestion rather than edit war, you have history of edit war before, you have been warned before, so please try not to do such again, which will lead you to difficulties in editing. Aiff article clearly says, ...announced a list of 41 players for the National Camp, enough to understand what it means. Please don't revert again. Drat8sub (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drat8sub: Both rude and wrong, an unpleasant combination. A final squad is indeed generally 23-26 players but a preliminary squad is a large collection of players that a coach calls up prior to announcing their final squad, and that's what was being shown. We are waiting for another user to chime in rather than repeatedly give our own opinions so kindly wait before reverting and give WP:CIVIL a read through while you wait. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rude and Wrong?? You need to introspect man. You are failing to under simple things here, you yourself saying preliminary squad which is not current squad. Again telling you, in the squad section you only include the players who are playing the match or played the match, period. If preliminary squad is current squad then what is this. The ultimate aim here is to make the article a good one or featured one, which is possible with least changeable stats, that why I have suggested you to read guidelines and MOS, which seems you did not want to but to argue rather. I was trying to be most civil I can be and patiently having the discussion. Please take time to go through guidelines. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many more times I can punctuate this but the preliminary squad was the current squad until the manager announced his final squad, as he has now done rendering this debate moot, whereupon the members of the PRE squad that failed to make the cut get moved to Recent Callups. But if you're looking to do some introspection of your own, I'd recommend reading WP:AVOIDYOU and skimming through your second response on this thread. Felixsv7 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as it is actually published (some teams or managers decline to make this list public) the preliminary squad is usually added to the current squad section. Once the final 26/27 man team is announced, those who failed to make it are moved to the recent call ups section. A recent example is the Netherlands for last year’s World Cup. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:, @GiantSnowman:, @Nehme1499:, @Paul Vaurie:, @Johan Elisson:, @Lee Vilenski:, pinged all of you since you are all experienced editors here. It would be nice if you share your thoughts and opinion and discuss the issue so to reach a consensus, that what should be a current squad mean. To me, if an article be promoted as G or FA, the article must be stable and the facts & stats must be added in such a way that there remains a minimal scope of change. Now, can NT camp callups can be considered current squad or a prelim squad can be considered as current squad, since both are subject to frequent changes before the match or tournament? Now per FIFA windows there are 12-14 matches, and if we consider prelim or NT camp as squad then the section will be changing more than 30 times a year, since many coaches announce a NT camp of 40-50 players, then reduce it and announce a prelim squad and then at last a final squad of 26/27 is announced. Now if we just consider current squad as the 28/27 players who will be playing the tournament or the friendly, and if there is no match then the recent squad for the recent match", then the section will be much more stable, since final squads is subject to change only when there is another match, will be more understandable, that these players are/were in the main team and rest were NT camp call ups or part of the squad played in last 12 months but not in current squad which are well mentioned respectively in the Recent callups section. I simply fail to understand how a National Team Camp callups can be considered as Current Squad. Drat8sub (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The new squad when announced becomes the 'current squad' - the recent players go in 'recent callus'. It's not rocket science. GiantSnowman 12:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, here squad is not mentioned. Just said, 41 players are called for camp where as here its clearly written 27 members squad. So current squad will be the second one, am I right?? Drat8sub (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That is correct, the most recent squad announced is the current squad. A preliminary squad, once announced, is the list of players that would be available to represent their nation in an upcoming tournament or match, it is very match a squad. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. – Elisson • T • C • 19:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed also. GiantSnowman 20:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

+4 Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I too agree Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

National Teams | Results and fixtures

Hi all,

If a national team has not scheduled any future fixtures, should we have a note or sentence to indicate this?

I'm bringing this up after an edit on Northern Mariana Islands national football team that I think looks pretty odd.

Maybe: Northern Mariana Islands have no future matches scheduled.

(With or without italics depending on preference)

Felixsv7 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That has the complete opposite effect of the editor's intentions, at least to me anyway. I would there was something to add when there's an empty section tag telling me that but if they don't have any games scheduled, there's no guarantee it will ever be filled. Personally, I wouldn't use the italics and would say something like "The Northern Mariana Islands last played..." and details of the last time they were active. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So more similar to North Korea, not addressing the lack of future scheduled matches? Felixsv7 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, that does address it because it says they withdrew. It could do with adding in that the qualifiers for the World Cup doubled as qualifiers for the Asian Cup so that it's clear why they haven't played in 2022 or 2023. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Surely after all the pre-season match announcements, this player update, this announcement for next season's CFO and the dates of the fixtures is enough SIGCOV for the article to be finally created? Mwiqdoh (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We've been through this in the deletion discussion: the club website cannot be used as SIGCOV as it is not an independent source. Spike 'em (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And neither article actually mentions the 2023-24 season. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• One one hand User:Mwiqdoh the deletion is absolutely absurd, and creating confusion, as I don't see much attempts to improve the article at Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, which is where it should happen. On the other hand, please just add a decent couple of sources from two site (like from a real newspaper or BBC), and I'll happily submit another DRV. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't get why Mwiqdoh is opening up this conversation so many times, can we combine this one the other below!?!? It is rather bizarre to me that WP:NSEASONS still exist and is ignored here. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Aubameyang a 2022-23 La Liga title winner?

Numerous sources state that Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang wins La Liga with Barcelona this season, despite leaving the club in September 2022. However editor NextEditor123 started edit warring and repeatedly removed the contents created by different editors without adequate explanation. I think this case should be clarified.

Chelsdog (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

When Barcelona won La Liga in 2022-23 season, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang was not part of the team at that moment of time as he left in September of 2022. He played only 1 game for them at the start of the season. And after that, he was not needed in the team and transferred to Chelsea.

Twitter is not a reliable source. NextEditor123 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The articles from goal.com and SPORTbible look more like authors' speculations based on Twitter posts rather than actual news reports. NextEditor123 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source - the club's own official Twitter account can be considered reliable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia rules, social networks cannot be used as a source there even if it belongs to official people or community. NextEditor123 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. See WP:TWITTER. FCB's own official Twitter account is acceptable for claims related to FCB -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Except clubs' sites and social network profile can be self-serving as there were many examples of that.

The statement of Aubameyang as 2022-23 La Liga winner can be valid if there is gonna be either videos/ photos sources of him having an official medal or an official statement from La Liga executives. NextEditor123 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange to think this player will receive the La Liga honour in early June (which is when they should get their honours, not today), whereas in the 2015-16 season when Leicester won the title, Joe Dodoo played 29 minutes but I don't see the Premier League honour on the former Leicester City player's article. I'd guess different leagues present honours differently. Also, by checking Aubameyang Soccerway, they do not have the honour of the 2022/2023 in the trophies section yet. Since there are four La Liga matches left, I'd say it's too early for the inclusion of the La Liga article, on any Barcelona related page until the ceremony at the earliest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

dodoo doesnt get one because pl rules say you need at least 10 appearances to get a winners medal, so dodoo did not qualify. as for spain, a quick google tells me they do not give medals to players for winning trophies so youre not gonna see him with a medal nor will you see any other barca player with one cuz they just dont give them out. sources 1 2 mention that no barca players will get medals for winning la ligaMuur (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

By checking Gökhan Inler: he played five league appearances but 10 in total. For the 2016-17 season - you also see for Chelsea that Asmir Begović bags two appearances for Chelsea's recent title winning season six seasons ago and 8 in total. Seems like qualifying for title honours has changed criteria over time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about Aubameyang? And yes, different leagues have different rules... GiantSnowman 21:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: there are multiple reliable sources stating that he is being officially recognised as a league winner, but NextEditor123 dismisses them as valid, saying that they "look more like authors' speculations [....] than actual news reports" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because they do look like articles about authors' personal opinion (especially SPORTbible) rather than actual official reports. Including using Twitter posts as a source. NextEditor123 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In which case NextEditor's edits are disruptive and if they continue, they will be blocked. There is clear consensus here that the honour should be listed. GiantSnowman 08:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We cannot make this conclusion yet. There are many players in Wikipedia whose some honours are absent in their articles because after they played several matches, they left their club at middle of season while their former teams end up becoming Champions in the end of the season. You cannot call my edit disruptive because there are many examples of that there. NextEditor123 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If we only give a pass to Aubameyang and ignore the rest of players, it means that there are double standarts in WikiProject Football. NextEditor123 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus. That is disruptive. GiantSnowman 10:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Show me a link to the consensus. NextEditor123 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A consensus should not contradicts with other Wikipedia pages. Which in that case it does. Because you pass this article and ignore others. NextEditor123 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is clear from this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 12:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You just proved my point about double standarts there. NextEditor123 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia pages for the likes of Memphis Depay, Hector Bellerín, Gerard Piqué, Thomas Partey and Ritchie De Laet. Those are just a few examples of other players being credited for winning a title when they left mid season. There is no double standard for Aubameyang. Everyone editing wikipedia is aware of the rules to receiving medals in respective leagues. You are the one that is being disruptive. Please do not edit anymore or you will be blocked. Jarradjarrad (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you threatening me, Jarradjarrad? Recently created user? NextEditor123 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is threatening you. Whether I am new or old, we all simply want wikipedia to be reliable for people, and by you constantly changing wikipedia pages and removing accurate information is frustrating to not just me, but clearly it is frustrating to the other editors as you can see above. If that came off as threatening then I apologise, but I'm sure you understand the frustration that the editors feel. Jarradjarrad (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Premier League and La Liga rules does not matter there. One of main things that matter in Wikipedia is giving solid sources for edits to be accepted. In case of Piqué and Cancelo, they both have profiles in official websites of Premier League and FC Barcelona. They are used in their Wikipedia pages as sources for "Honours" sections. If you look at them, they don't include La Liga title for Piqué or Premier League title for Cancelo in 2023 at that moment. We can put titles in both Wikipedia articles if they will be included in the sources.

Secondary, I have nothing to do with editing articles of Thomas Partey and Ritchie De Laet. Are you trying to frame me?

One more thing. I see that almost every user in Wikipedia that are a little closer to administration usually threaten to block someone first instead of having a discussion. In your case, your message was more outrageous as it comes from a beginning user (or maybe you are another user that close to the administration) by saying that I have no rights to edit in Wikipedia anymore.

About editors' frustration, I mentioned earlier that edit should coincide with information from the sources (In case of Cancelo and Piqué). NextEditor123 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I know you have nothing to do with editing articles of Thomas Partey and Ritchie De Laet. You stated earlier: "If we only give a pass to Aubameyang and ignore the rest of players, it means that there are double standarts in WikiProject Football." I am letting you know that the standard has always been to add titles in the honour section of players despite them leaving mid season.

Once again I will say that if you felt threatened I apologise, but that was certainly not my intention.

This is wikipedia. Using words like "frame" and "threaten" are a little extreme. You already know by looking at my account that I can't do anything to you. Jarradjarrad (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know if this would be of any use for consideration of if he would be considered a league winner or not. I get things are a little murkier in Spain due to no individual medals being awarded for minimum appearances but this might be worth considering. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since reliable articles say he got the honour, I say list it. Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

David Ruiz article

I would deeply appreciate it if someone would look at the article for Honduran youth international David Ruiz- which is titled David Ruiz (soccer) - and tackle the concerns I left on the talk page. M89565c (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. RedPatch (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2023–24 West Ham United F.C. season and 2023–24 Crystal Palace F.C. season should be moved into draft space

User:Spike 'em's reasons for moving 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season into draft space (Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season), namely no independent significant coverage, also apply to the 2023–24 West Ham United F.C. season and 2023–24 Crystal Palace F.C. season articles. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a copy of the Palace one in draft space already. I tried restoring the previous redirect earlier in the week, but that was undone, and I'm not getting into an edit war over it (the Spurs one had a consensus to redirect via the AfD). Spike 'em (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Clubs needing English football updater

There's a lot of articles I made for new clubs coming into the senior system in England last season that I didn't use the {{English football updater}} template in. Retrospectively, I should've done it (no idea why I didn't to be honest). But if someone could update the following clubs to have the template with their league positions for 22/23, it'd be massively appreciated. I can source the league positions if needed, just doing my head at the moment trying to comprehend that template whilst I'm jetlagged.

Hartpury University F.C., Heacham F.C., Basildon Town F.C., Cannons Wood F.C., Stanway Pegasus F.C., Euxton Villa F.C., F.C. St Helens, Ashville F.C., Foley Meir F.C., Stockport Georgians A.F.C., Boro Rangers F.C., Chester-le-Street United F.C., Prudhoe Youth Club F.C., Teignmouth A.F.C., Bude Town F.C., Ringmer A.F.C., AFC Whyteleafe, Bermondsey Town F.C., Eaton Socon F.C., Moulton F.C., Southwell City F.C., Nailsea & Tickenham F.C., Shirehampton F.C. and Spartans Youth F.C. all need this template.

Massive thanks if someone's able to do it. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to all the articles listed. I've also got a draft of the full 2022–23 final positions and new divisions for 2023–24 (which includes all the newly promoted clubs) in the sandbox of the updater template. Just waiting for the results of the play-off matches this weekend before making it live. Number 57 16:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You're a hero. Will crack on with the articles for the new clubs for next season after this weekend then. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Question on FIFA World Cup honours

For the honours section on player articles, do we include fourth place finishes for the FIFA World Cup? I assumed we wouldn't but they're included on some of the 1990 England team such as Gary Lineker and Chris Waddle Michaeldble (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not an 'honour'. GiantSnowman 14:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Michaeldble (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Caroline Weir's place of birth

An IP address claiming to be her mother started a discussion on Talk:Caroline Weir about the place of birth - it is claimed "Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley" was said as part of the opening edit though some sources say Dumfermline, a fair distance away from Paisley. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks the correct action of simply removing the place from the article is correct. As User:Crowsus notes (and I assume they are correct), the only official birth record is for the Paisley area - making it very likely that the claim is correct! I suppose you can just put in Scotland ... Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'd go with Scotland in that field, as that is not in dispute / doubt and it looks a bit weird empty. The categories can be left as Dunfermline / Fife as she certainly grew up there from a young age. Crowsus (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll agree with just Scotland until something definite appears on the internet at a later date. You can't be born in two places (or have two birthdates in the case of other dob issues going around in the past). Also I can't guarantee in saying the OP of the section has seen any responses on the talk page yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Bamford

Hello, there appears to be ongoing content dispute between anonymous IPs and me/Mattythewhite recently. I've reverted this three times already, all of which relates to the end date for England national football team. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Depends on your view on this discussion. There is no clear decision on the final part : whether to keep the team recent call-ups in line with the player infoboxes and how long for. I tend to leave players for 2 years after last call-up, but that is partly because they just get reverted without explanation if I do earlier and I just can't be arsed arguing all the time! Spike 'em (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We haven't reached 2 years since August 2021 which I see was the date for his last call-up. I have seen the discussion which seems reasonable for the 2 year consensus. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As a few of you are probably aware, the content dispute is still ongoing and therefore I requested protection a while ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The reverts are still continuing, and I feel I've done more than enough in terms of patrolling this page recently, if some could be kind enough to intervene. Mattythewhite (talk)

Also I wondered if the numerous IP addresses and Lewis de Black are the same person or not. It does appear the same editing behaviour is involved between them. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The reverts are still continuing and Lewis de Black has shown a WP:TE attitude at their TP. Further protection requested. Eagleash (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this request will be more successful, since the one I requested resulting in the IP block range does not appear to be enough. I was only aware of the block when Eagleash pointed the relevant section confirming admin action was done. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Initially the increased level was declined, as somehow I got the level wrong (!) but as you know the user is now blocked for EW... only 24 hours, but it is something and an Admin is now aware. Eagleash (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I filed in the extended confirmed protection as Lewis de Black is not qualified for that level yet but we are extended-confirmed users. I wouldn't say that level was wrong to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Bury

i guess its time to decide what to do with the two burys now theyre merging into one teamMuur (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

See this. Affects Bury F.C. and Bury A.F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Marge the articles--EchetusXe 08:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The page histories cannot be merged. My suggestion - possibly controversial - would be create a new article for the new club, and retain the existing two articles as the historical entities. GiantSnowman 16:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

But there isn't a new club – Bury AFC will just merge into the original club (see "The historic club, winners of the FA Cup in 1900 and 1903, will return to the football pyramid at the ninth tier, taking up AFC Bury’s place in the Premier Division of the North West Counties League"). My personal preference would be to have a single article, which details the fact that supporters set up a separate club (AFC) to play while the original was inactive (effectively as a placeholder), but then Bury FC took over AFC's place in the leagues once the merger was agreed. Number 57 16:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to move Bury A.F.C. to Bury F.C. (2019) or similar - as far as I understand, they are different clubs like the two Halifax's. Someone probably knows this situation of the two Bury's better than me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

bury a.f.c have been officially given the history and memorabilia of the original bury, so they will be merging together as one team that has the history of both teams. but theres still the fact that afc were their own team for a few years so its tough to figure out the correct solution. bury fc are absorbing afc with bury continuing forward in afc's place but the new combined club will have the history of both teams. its a unique new situation that has never happened before as the new team has been given the old team's history by the fa but then its considered to be the team from the 1800s but also the team from 2019 at the same time. i guess the two pages could be merged into one as well with a lot of edits all over the bury f.c. page to explain the situation...but the complication arises at the fact they were separate teams for 4 years. in essence, going forward, the history is that there were never two teams. only bury f.c. under a different name for a few years under retconned history. anything going forward if continuing the pages would be the same on both teams and that obvioulsy isnt ideal. i guess the best solution is to merge both pages which also effects any players from the last 3 years and just make sure to explain whats going on to an accetable manner. it would be kinda like if serbia and montenegro re-combine as one team and then keep both team's historys from when they were apart. whatever the solution, Bury A.F.C. will no longer exist as its own team as of july 1st 2023. they are absorbed into the original bury who will gain their 2019-2023 season stats as their own/the 2019 club gain 150 years of history. (although technically, the fa have approved afc gaining the history of bury fc but they haven't decided if they will allow them to be renamed to bury fc. its possible they go forward as bury afc if a name change is turned down but theyre still being absorbed into the original club so if a name change is rejected its the original bury under the name bury afc. either way, if only one article remained, you would keep the article for the team from the 1800s as the combined entity has the history going all the way back to the 1800s)Muur (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(ec) As the two clubs were never active (in playing terms) at the same time, I would simply merge the article on the newer club into that of the older one, which will give us one continuous playing history. We will have the playing history of the "old" club up to 2019, followed by the playing history of the "new" club from 2019 to 2023, and then the playing history of the "old, now incorporating the new" club from 2023 onwards. The wranglings about the shell of the "old" club from 2019 to 2023 (which frankly are covered in far far too much detail at present) could be incorporated into the same 2019-2023 section as the actual playing history of the "new" club or covered in a separate section in the merged article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest we simply leave the AFC article alone, as it was a separate club, and any new edits can be to the FC article. No need to merge anything, if we explain on each page why we have two separate articles. GiantSnowman 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

itd be fair to also have two pages like that yea but, the original bury also get the history between 2019-2023. e.g. any playing records for those years would count for the original bury too. the manager, Andy Welsh, will have been considered to have managed the original bury from 2019-2023. there's at least one player, Aidan Chippendale, who played for both bury fc and bury afc and now his 7 appearances for bury fc and 28 for bury afc will be considered as 35 for bury fc due to the merging. burys social media pages are even using the original bury fc club logoMuur (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with GiantSnowman. Keep the AFC article as a separate article (but linked from the Bury FC article) so that readers can read about the early playing history of the 'new-era Bury' (I edited both articles extensively throughout the period). As Bury AFC achieved a league title and a promotion to the now-merged club's current position in the pyramid (the side also advanced through several rounds of the 2022-23 FA Cup qualifiers and the FA Vase), and there were tensions between the two supporters' groups prior to the merger, I think we should retain the AFC article for detailed context, and then provide appropriate links between the two articles. Explanations about Andy Welsh and Aidan Chippendale can be added via footnotes. (All this assumes that the FA approves the merged club's proposed name change to Bury FC). Paul W (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

interestingly it seems there's a precedence before i was unaware of with darlington as mentioned here. Talk:Bury_F.C.#Consensus_to_maintain_the_1885_formation_date_of_Bury_FC_post-merger the situation is pretty much the same and both articles were merged toegether upon darlington and Darlington 1883 being merged together so for consistency it seems the correct solution, due to darlington, is to merge bury afc into bury fc. i didnt realise this had already happened, so in ortherwords- merge afc into fc with one article/team going forward provided the fa approve the change. darlginton were kicked out the league but still existed. darlington 1883 were formed but the original still existed. then the fa allowed 1883 to gain the history of the original and went forward as darlington. huh. this is the exact same situation as bury. see Darlington F.C. Muur (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Should Wanda Rozwadowska have an article?

Does anyone think these sources for Wanda Rozwadowska is enough to justify a wikipedia article. Profile - Canada Soccer , blackcrows names Wanda Rozwadowska as their new Global Chief Commercial Officer. – Mountain Women Magazine , #4 Pilots dismantle #12 Huskies 4-0 - University of Portland Athletics (portlandpilots.com) , COLLEGES: SOCCER; No North Carolina In Women's Final - The New York Times (nytimes.com) , Women's Soccer Shut Down by Defending National Champions - Gonzaga University Athletics (gozags.com) , Blackcrows Names Wanda Rozwadowska As New Global Chief Commercial Officer (snowindustrynews.com) Dwanyewest (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Not based on those sources. There is a brief profile from one of her teams, a few mentions of her name on match reports and a a couple of rehashes of a press release regarding her appointment to a position completely unrelated to her soccer career. Spike 'em (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's always better to judge once a draft has been created, but I agree she des not appear to be notable. GiantSnowman 09:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to remove redirect at 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

All other PL teams' season articles are already created and this has even more coverage than those articles. It's just that this article has been specifically targeted. We are in the middle of May and there is only 1 matchday left until the end of the season. This is getting ridiculous. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you found any independent significant coverage since you raised this 3 days ago? Spike 'em (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And I've just restored another redirect, so Spurs don't feel left out. Spike 'em (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear if they will be in Europe or not but it should not be too long for this season page to be an article itself to be in line with the rest of the club season articles. Same applies to Everton and the other relegation candidates when we don't know which division they are going to be in next season. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, User:Spike 'em They provided sources a day ago, a couple at least look good. So can you revert? Also, this is starting to look a little unusual, given you created 2018–19 Crystal Palace F.C. season on May 9th, and 2019–20 Crystal Palace F.C. season on May 12 - both far less significant seasons and both in worse state than the Hotspur 2023-24 article when they were created! Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

1. how are these far less significant? All 3 are for teams who (will have) finished the previous season mid-table in the PL.
2. one was done after the last game of the season, the other in the week leading up to it, so at a similar point as we are at now.
3. me wrongly creating a poorly sourced article in the past is not an excuse for someone else to do the same now.

the sources provided seem to give details of a player leaving at the end of this season and the other focused on where they will finish this season (with the implications for next season). I'm not sure any of them can be considered SIGCOV of the next Spurs season, but if others feel differently then I'm not going to argue. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because people created articles way too early in previous seasons, that doesn't justify doing it again this season. Frankly all of this mass creation of future football events/seasons with no known information is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous. It is so editors have a place to update information as it is released, instead of waiting until there's a certain amount and then creating in one go. This easier I'm sure on many editors' time (which is voluntary as is). Now that we have draft options, that might be the better way to go per this argument, but I think it's a process that takes time for editors to get used to. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You lead with far less significant? My logic though was that Tottenham had a European spot next season. Looking at the table, I hadn't realised that Tottenham had pissed it all away in the last fortnight. Good grief - Brighton & Hove Albion in the Europa League? Hell has frozen over! :) Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, we still have WP:NSEASONS, however the wording there doesn't include English football league which is pretty bad. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned on the relevant page, , these are covered by this clause, though not explicitly: Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. The guideline does not remove the need to have SIGCOV nor does it suggest quite when the season does become notable. Spike 'em (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Page move of Roger Schmidt

Roger Schmidt (manager) - I reckon this probably needs user consensus first because he has played over 200 competitive matches (according to the infobox). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Should probably be at Roger Schmidt by now as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Schmidt is definitely more notable as a manager than a player, and an even cursory check of where he played should make that fairly obvious. His 200+ appearances were mostly in third division of German football at a time when it was still organized into multiple regional leagues rather than one national one, and still had a good number of semi-pro clubs. Compare that to his managerial career where he's competed in the top flight in five different countries. Assuming we don't treat him as the primary topic, the hatnote should probably be football manager. To me anyway, the term manager, unqualified, suggests a business person rather than sports person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Roger Schmidt (academic) where he was originally titled as Roger Schmidt (football manager). Pinging @Ortizesp: who moved the article to the footballer identifier from "football manager". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And yes, manager does seem wrong - we don't have a Steve Cooper (manager) page, he belongs at Steve Cooper (football manager).

Third division football definitely less notable than the top division when he manages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It remains standard for former players who have become managers to be named as 'footballer', even if their management career is more illustrious than the playing career... GiantSnowman 22:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree there Snowman. There are a good number of articles that use football manager as a disambiguation hatnote, many of whom have also had a playing career, so unless there's some prior consensus that I'm unaware of and that these pages are ignoring, this does not appear to be standard. It also probably shouldn't be, since it can misrepresent why the subject is notable. In Schmidt's case, it's not just that his managerial career is more illustrious, it's the only reason he's notable enough to have an article. Without it he's an unremarkable semi-pro footballer whose article would quickly be deleted, if it were ever created to begin with. What I think the standard ought to be is that either hatnote is fine for people who have been both managers and players, and it should not be changed without good reason, but that an individual being clearly more notable in one role than the other is a good reason to move the article to match that role. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

'More notable' is subjective. If a person played for a youth team and broke their leg at 16 before becoming a top manager, then fair enough 0- but people like Steve Cooper and Roger Schmidt both had decent playing careers (5 and 19 years respectively). GiantSnowman 08:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is why we should use the subject and not the profession as the disambiguator - since he's had a notable career as a player and a coach (and we have so many examples of others in this category), Roger Schmidt (football) is a far better title for the article than either Roger Schmidt (footballer) or Roger Schmidt (football manager). – PeeJay 12:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Having a look at "Category:English football managers", I recognise in many situations that those who are titled "football manager" don't have much of a playing career. Our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) only mentions manager once and I am unaware of another page which has naming conventions of manager. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Guardiola and Copa del Rey 1997-98

FC Barcelona won Copa del Rey in 1998. Pep Guardiola was part of the team for the whole season and played at least one match there. His official profile in website of the club recognized him as the winner of the cup in 1998. But Mattythewhite keep deleting it from his honour section. Should we remain it or remove it? Can the profile from the club's website be suitable source for that? NextEditor123 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Bale's status as a LAFC "player" in 2023?

Can we get some consistency on the status of a player retiring on (effectively) January 1, but being listed as a player for a club for that year? We had this convo previously, but no majority was reached.

In short, the facts that we can all agree on are these. Bale last played domestic football in the 2022 MLS season, last played international football in the 2022 FIFA World Cup, was contracted to LAFC until June 30, 2023 and retired in January 2023, before the 2023 MLS season started. This seems rather illogical to show his international career ending the year of his last game for Wales, but not the year of his last game for LAFC.

Additionally, we don't have specific dates of retirement for players who played decades ago, so we have their careers listed by the dates of their first to last career matches - Why is Bale's different? I'm sure players in the past retired after injury and realising a year on from their last game that they couldn't continue their careers.

Pinging @RedPatch, GiantSnowman, Dr Salvus, Amakuru, Mattythewhite, Spike 'em, Ortizesp, Joseph2302, BlameRuiner, Iggy the Swan, Muur, Nehme1499, Footwiks, and Daemonickangaroo2018: - people who responded last time.

Let's try and figure this out. - J man708 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My view is that it should say only 2022. Especially when it's so close to Jan 1. I'd view it a bit differently if he waited until pre-season in March, but clearly there was no involvement in team activities in 2023. Showing only 2022 is most beneficial to the reader, as it better displays what actually occurred. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees because we're getting too hell-bent on specifics rather than WP:COMMONSENSE. Here's a couple other examples, in North America, clubs sometimes only announce which players they've picked up and which they declined that season's contract option in early January. We don't include 2023 in their club end dates, because common sense tells us that their contract ended Dec 31, 2022 (since their 2023 option was declined); but it was only announced on say January 3. Similarly for players who agreed to join new clubs for 2023, but the announcement came in say December, we just list 2023 as the start date with the assumption the contract begins Jan 1, even if it's not specifically stated, because that makes the most sense. RedPatch (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. UP to 2022 sounds sensible. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

pretty sure that was a consensus for 2023 and the fact one guy keep bringing it up is annoying. this is like the 4th time. if a guy breaks his leg in jan 2022 and doesnt play for a year and released in june 2023 your logic is to list 2022. or back up gks who play 0 games for 5 years. the football infobox says "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, one per attribute, earliest to latest." he was contracted till 2023. its as simple as that. try and get the template changed with admin permission but until such time the rules are contracted years. if you want to push it to last played...youre opening up a wormhole for saying a goalkeeper as 2017 instead of 2023 because he played 0 games in that period. you lose. bale was contracted till 2023 and retired in 2023 and the literal rules say that counts to end it as 2023. stop bringing it up every 3 weeks. the previous comment mentions expiring on december 31 2022, and well...thats 2022. not 2023. not the same. if bale died on jan 1st you write jan 1st, you dont put december 31 cuz he only just got into 2023 but you dont wanna count it as 2023 cus it only just started. he retired in 2023. regardless of whatever anyone can say, the template is very clear that because he was contracted in 2023 it says 2023 if instead he was sold mid jan you wouldn't even question it. this is important because of siuations where goalkeepers or injured players go years without playing matches or what if he had signed for someoen in 2023, broke his leg, never played, and then leaves. your logic is you cant even list him as a player of that team because he played 0 matches despite being signed for a year. the box is contracted years. some players go out on loan then proceed to play 0 matches cuz it turns out their terrible but this would mean you wouldnt' list him at all having played 0 games. whether concensus or not, the rules say 2023Muur (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

REPLY - Heads up? Your hyperbole is ridiculous. This is the second time I've brought this up, not the fourth. It was also four months ago, not three weeks. And on top of that? The main idea is that consensus changes - That's why things get brought up again further down the track. - J man708 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In 2023, Bale was still a footballer contracted to a team so the infobox should reflect that. Also, consensus is not about majority. 20 people can argue against something and one be in favour and the consensus could be with the one because they have the stronger argument. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur fully with the above two comments. Please stop recycling these edits hoping they will slip through unnoticed . Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I still think 2023 can be considered as the end date as the contract with LA was supposed to end in June 2023 per opening edit on this section. Up to 2022 and retiring on 9 January 2023 sounds a bit different to me. I am aware it would not be possible for any appearances made in 2023 due to the extreme weather in the US which means no fixtures for any team plus the retirement announcement due to fitness so some users agree on 2022. I, however, say 2023. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

i suppose its possible the user in question has only brought it up for the second time but the thread itself has been brought up like 8 times since he retired. this isnt the second time it's been discussed and the last time i recall was it being ended instantly upon it being brought up that the rules for footballer infoboxes states that its the contracted years and he was contracted in 2023. one user kept bringing it back up and its super annoying that such a thing keeps coming back up when the rules are quite clear. push for a change on what the template says but if you do manage it then it would cause things such as not listing rob green as a hudderersfield or chelsea player as he warmed the bench and played 0 times for both. last played not last contracted is a slippery slope and is a big issue for third choice gks cuz they just dont play. some go 5 or more years without playing a game and we cant just pretend theyre not part of the squad. it says contracted for a reason. this logic puts green retiring two years before he officially did because he played 0 times in his last two seasons. we cant pretend he wasn't contracted to those teamsMuur (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

But that's just it. Bale is NOT part of the squad for 2023. - J man708 (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As of January 3, 2023, he was included till he was removed since the retirement announcement. But certainly not in the current Los Angeles FC season for that reason. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying to alter backup keepers and change it to only appearance dates. The point is to show basically what was really the case which was Bale was not a member of the roster for the 2023 season (which begins late Feb/early March). This is not a mixed year season like European leagues. He never took part in any team activities in 2023. Reserve keepers most certainly did. Ie. They were on the bench, participated in trainings, etc. You're trying to use an extreme example to push your point. There is a clear distinction. RedPatch (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

His retirement was effective from 1 January 2023, which means he was not officially a player at any point on that date. His career ended the moment the clock turned from 23:59:59 on 31 December 2022 to 00:00:00 on 1 January 2023. – PeeJay 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for this? His retirement was announced on 8 January. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My source was my own flawed memory. Disregard. – PeeJay 13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

so do we count sala as a cardiff player? he never even got to cardiff.Muur (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, stick to the topic at hand. You keep throwing out unrelated points which are separate discussions entirely. This discussion is focused on Bale and whether we should include 2023 in the infobox due to the date of when he left the team due to a retirement. Remember, wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Each guideline can be altered depending on differing circumstances. And many North and South American and Austrialian leagues have a key distinction from European leagues. They are single calendar year seasons (ie. 2023) not cross-calendar seasons (ie. 2022-23). I'm not saying that's the reason it shouldn't, it's just it needs to be approached from a different angle before a decision can be made. Given he left well before pre-season even started, there is no one who would view him as being part of the 2023 squad. The discussion about honours comes up all the time, if it should be included for a mid-season departed player, etc. I don't think anyone would disagree, if LAFC wins anything this year, no one would argue for Bale to get the honour included because he simply wasn't a part of the squad. He wasn't a mid-season departure, he wasn't even a pre-season departure. He was an off-season departure. If a player left a European club on 2 July, would anyone consider him to have been part of that year's team. Their memory would just consider him as having left after the previous season. Whenever we see players agree to deals before 1 July (ie. 15 June), don't we usually just tell people to wait until 1 July to add it to the infobox, even if there's no source stating specifically that that's when the deal starts. We do it because it better reflects reality. Our goal here is to help the reader. How does having 2023 as the end date in any way help the reader. You see 2022-23 on Bale's page (knowing that seasons are calendar seasons) and the reader assumes he must have played during both the 2022 and 2023 seasons. Especially five/ten years from now, when things fade from memory and we forget he retired right after the world cup (which people will also might forget the world cup happened in december on first thought since this was a one-off). What benefits the average reader - it's a 2022 date, because that better represents his involvement with the club. It's a principle we've been following with American leagues all the time. Technically, MLS contracts expire November 30 and you see players agreeing to contracts for the following season in December all the time. There's never been any conclusive indication when these contracts take effect whether it's instantaneously or on 1 January, but on wikipedia, we've always just put the start date of the new year (ie. 2023- in the infobox), because that is the most helpful to any reader RedPatch (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

well, bale's contract didnt expire in november. he had another year. Muur (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And if his contract expired in 2025, would we put 2025, despite him retiring years before that? No, we wouldn't, because that would be inaccurate to report his career. What most accurately portrays his career to the reader? It is 2022. I never said his contract expired in November. I raised that as players who signed contracts in December after having them expire in November, we put 2023 as the start instead of December as it more accurately represents their playing career, and thus is more helpful to the reader. RedPatch (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't benefit the reader to say 2022 if his career actually ended in 2023. Readers understand that having a year in the infobox doesn't necessarily mean the player played a match for that team in that year, it just means they were contracted. As an example, Kris Boyd has 2006 as the end of his first Kilmarnock spell even though he never played a match for Kilmarnock in 2006 (granted that's a transfer rather than a retirement but the essence is the same, he left the club before they played any matches that year). As for WP:VERIFY, we should only be using the date of retirement as anything else wouldn't be verifiable. Bale retired in 2023, it really is that simple. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Where's the consistency between Bale's retirement showing 2023 and every player before say 1990, whose career matches dictate his years? I'm sure there's been past players who have retired after January 1, with no games played, who'd be listed by their last match played? It's inconsistently biased towards modernity. - J man708 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, it has to be verifiable. If you can verify a player was with club X in 1957 but never played for them and retired at somepoint that year then 1957 should be used and not 1956 just because he didn't play a game. If you can only verify a player's time at a club through their appearances then that's all you can use. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If we know a player retired on a certain date, that's the date we should put. We've only ever used the dates of players' first and last matches as a matter of convenience when we don't have reliable info about when they signed contracts or "officially" retired. – PeeJay 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that works for the 1% of players whom we can confirm the exact retirement date of and leaves the other 99% of players to their assumed dates. Seems ambiguous to me. Remember, while you and I know that Bale retired after January 1, 2023 and had contracts still valid and whatnot, what is the average reader going to take from this, especially when his career table only shows up until 2022?...

Can we show 2023 in his career table for consistency, as apparently he was a player during this year, despite clearly not being a player in this year? - J man708 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You are arguing against WP:V : you are saying we shouldn't use verifiable information where we have it because it is possibly inconsistent with cases where we don't. The solution to your quandary about the tables is to explain when he retired in the prose of the article, which the career tables and infobox are meant to summarise, not supplant. Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against WP:V, but arguing for a more consistant approach. It's verifiable that Michael Jordan was baseballer, but we know it's incorrect to list him as one - WP:VNOT. Gotta remember to think of the end user who wants the info of his playing career, not some technicality that he "played" in 2023, without ever being near a football pitch. - J man708 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What about international caps. A player could have had their last cap in 2017, and then appeared on the bench but didn't enter the game in 2018 and 2019. We have verifiable evidence that they were in the matchday squad in 2019, yet we still close it at 2017. There's inconsistencies all around. So, a player could internationally appeared on the bench for two years but we won't list it, but a guy like Bale announces his retirement shortly after new year (which he probably waited until the Christmas/New Years/early window cycle ended, so that the news would actually reach the audience as people may not pay as much attention over the Christmas holidays plus the first few days of the window are hectic) and we list 2023 despite his career effectively ending at the end of 2022. There's inconsistencies all around. We can have Verifiable evidence that a player was in an international squad, but this project doesn't care for that and lists his last appearance, but suddenly a player announces at the beginning of 2023 that he has decided the 2022 year would be the end of his career and he will not play this year, but we're supposed to put 2023 for that? RedPatch (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is going way off subject. This thread is meant to be about Gareth Bale, and in that respect is redundant, as the present article conforms entirely to long-agreed policy. If you want to change the policy, you need to start a discussion on the talk page for Template:Infobox football biography, which currently states in respect of the (club) year field: that this should include “A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club” and for the nationalyears field: “A list of years that the player has played for each national team”. [My bold] Consequently, further discussion here is pointless. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well except that the long agreed upon consensus for calendar-year season leagues (e.g. MLS) is to only include the years in the infobox during which the team was actually playing e.g. if a player was with a team in 2022 but left for a new team in February 2023 before the league started up again, we generally put the closing date as 2022 for the previous club. I think that is in part due to the way this particular league works (because players sign with the league rather than individual teams), but this applies to all players playing in those leagues. This applies to more than just Bale, it is just because he is such a high profile player that ended his career in MLS that this is getting so much attention. Jay eyem (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't going off topic, both Jay eyem and RedPatch get the point I was making intially. It's only "about" Gareth Bale because he's the highest traffic article where this issue stems. - J man708 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the infobox is to be defined by contract years, then a player like Zlatan’s time at Manchester United should be shown on two different lines, as he was released and was a free agent before signing a completely unrelated contract to his previous one. But, we show it as one continuous stint in his infobox because this disambiguates it for the reader - a reader who I assure you doesn’t give a shit about contracts and wants the years starting and ending Zlatan’s playing career with Manchester United. Seeing as this is the case, then it’s stupid to ignore contracts for Zlatan’s article but stick to the letter of the law on Bale’s - J man708 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Zlatan's contract with Man Utd expired and then was re-signed during the same transfer window. Sure, he was technically a free agent for like two months, but that's kinda irrelevant. – PeeJay 10:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So, we ignore 2 months of free agency, but show a week of Bale being an LAFC player? Seems arbitrary as hell. -J man708 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I vote keeping his career until 2023. I'd rather go by contract date than cap date. Ortizesp (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not really going by "cap date" so much as "seasons on roster". He was only on the roster for the 2022 season. He basically announced in the first week of January that he was nullifying his 2023 contract year and not using it. RedPatch (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical. If a player with a season remaining on their contract on a European team announces their retirement on 3 July this year (prior to the club beginning their pre-season training), would you include a row in their career statistics table for the 2023-24 season? Would you consider them to be a squad member for the 2023-24 season despite the club never commencing squad activities for the upcoming season yet? RedPatch (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

He was under contract in early 2023. In his infobox, I'd write [year of start]-2023. As for the "season on roster", he neither received any call-up, nor commenced any team activity, so I'd not write his name in the season table. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Leicester City F.C.

Leicester City F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Diffusion of Category:English Football League clubs

@Teterev53: has taken it upon themselves to diffuse Category:English Football League clubs into e.g. Category:EFL League Two clubs, and only include the league's current teams. My understanding was that the main clubs category was for all clubs to ever play in the league, and the current set up means some clubs will need to be recategorised every season with promotion/relegation. Is there any support for this, or shall we revert and delete the new cats? GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer returning these clubs into Category:English Football League clubs and Category:Premier League clubs as it was before Teterev53 butted in to change how these articles moved categories to where they are now. I also think consensus should have clearly been seen on a talk page for user agreement rather than taking upon themselves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree - change it back. I notice that Category:English Football League clubs still says at the top "This category is for all teams, past and present, that have played in the English Football League (EFL), formerly known as the Football League." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you propose to delete/upmerge Category:EFL Championship clubs (created not by me), or what? Teterev53 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• As of now, each league has own category: Category:Premier League clubs (20 teams), Category:EFL Championship clubs (24 teams), Category:EFL League One clubs (24 teams), Category:EFL League Two clubs (24 teams) etc. Also Category:English Football League clubs is an umbrella category for three divisions. What is wrong with that? Former league teams are located in subcategories: Category:Former English Football League clubs (created not by me) and Category:Former Premier League clubs (created by me like an analogy). The description was fixed. Teterev53 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, are you going to lead on changing the categories of the 22 teams that change division each season? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Its not a big problem to make 22 edits one time in a year. Anyway you need to update categories like for Luton Town if they go up to PL. Why not between League One and League Two? Note, Category:EFL Championship clubs was created not by me. I just sorted it carefully. Teterev53 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Revert - Seems totally unnecessary, and overly specific. If it's only for current teams (honestly, I could understand all-time better) then what's the point, as that information is already in the adjacent infobox at the bottom of the same articles? I don't see what this adds. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, should include all teams that played there (like the template). Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Revert. Preferred it as an all-time category, not one that will need updating on an annual basis. Paul W (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What exactly to revert? You didn't see the mess that was with these categories before. Do you propose to delete/upmerge Category:Former English Football League clubs (created not by me), or what? Teterev53 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Remember when I said discuss it here? I do, but it was just "nonsense". Seasider53 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The nonsense is your edit [11] and summary because the season is over and all infoboxes are changed already (that club was relegated before). See the league parameter in Blackpool F.C. infobox which is equal EFL League One, not EFL Championship. Teterev53 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Using "Former" here for clubs that used to be in a league is a misuse of "former" within categories. It’s used for entities which no longer exist such as countries which once existed but now don’t. It’s not used for something that was once something but now isn’t but still exists. For example there is no "Former Liverpool F.C. managers" or "Former association football goalkeepers".--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As of now, there are dozens of former league clubs/teams categories. You can see (association football): Category:Former A-League Men teams, Category:Former Highland Football League teams, Category:Former League of Ireland clubs, Category:Former National First Division clubs, Category:Former Premier Soccer League clubs, Category:Former USL Championship teams etc. Also there are many such categories in other sports: Category:Former Liga ACB teams, Category:Former British Basketball League teams (basketball), Category:Former Kontinental Hockey League teams, Category:Former Liiga teams (ice hockey), Category:Former Mexican League teams, Category:Former Frontier League teams (baseball) and many others. if you want to reject such categories, it's need more complex decision for sports clubs categorization, not only about Category:Former Premier League clubs and Category:Former English Football League clubs categories tree. Note, the defunct clubs (not former) are categorized within Category:Defunct sports teams / Category:Defunct association football clubs. Teterev53 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and a lot of these categories contain defunct clubs or clubs which belonged to leagues that no longer exist. They are not for existing clubs allied with existing leagues.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the easiest way of merging the new cats back into Category:English Football League clubs - bot request? I don't have the time or effort to manually revert what is becoming increasingly clear was a very, very silly series of edits by Teterev53. GiantSnowman 18:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Very silly? Choose the words! Category:EFL Championship clubs existed before (with 8 or 9 articles in that moment), and there was no reason not to create Category:EFL League One clubs and Category:EFL League One clubs. But I don't understand why that categories were emptied. The League One have no clubs? Diffuse or not diffuse, I don't care, but why they were emptied? By the way such deleting of categories should be discussed at WP:Cfd at first. Teterev53 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Read this thread and see you have ZERO support for your edits. GiantSnowman 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Think that's it, should defunct clubs be both in the main category and the Defunct category, or just defunct? Crowsus (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't think that category should exist at all TBH – not done for other leagues as far as I'm aware. If they're in Category:Defunct football clubs in England, that's enough IMO. Number 57 21:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Empty the categories and then we can speedy them. GiantSnowman 21:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean... But I'd say that's a separate debate / CfD, as it's existed since 2011. Crowsus (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is the defunct intersection really needed? Aldershot F.C. is already in Category:Defunct football clubs in Hampshire et cetera. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've put a CfD on Category:Defunct English Football League clubs. Crowsus (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muur (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It is bad form to empty a long-existing category out of process and then tag it for speedy deletion as empty, as was done for Category:Former English Football League clubs (created July 2011 by Djln (talk · contribs), emptied yesterday by Crowsus (talk · contribs) and tagged for C1 today by Liz (talk · contribs)). The club pages should have been left in the category, and the cat sent to WP:CFM as a merge proposal. I see that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:Defunct English Football League clubs has been started by Crowsus - this was the correct thing to do: if it succeeds, a bot is then tasked to update all the articles and then delete the category page; if it fails, the category page will be de-tagged and no edits need to ba carried out on the articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't realise it was 12 years old, I assumed (since it has no equivalent nor any useful function) that it had been created by Teterev53 in the past few days. Feel free to revert my changes and start a CfD. Crowsus (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I reverted them, except for five - Aberdare Athletic F.C., Gateshead A.F.C., Halifax Town A.F.C., Hereford United F.C. and Rushden & Diamonds F.C. which were incorrectly categorised to begin with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  The 5 should probably have been put back too IMO, as Defunct will probably be deleted in a couple of days and therefore Former would be the most appropriate label for them in relation to the league. Still pondering whether to put the CfD on it, if anyone else feels strongly enough about it please go ahead. Crowsus (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Probably is not the same as definitely. Please do not pre-empt the outcome of an open CfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thorny wee rose aren't we? Crowsus (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I opened a CfD as it would define the merge target of the first listed category: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 31#Category:Former English Football League clubs Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Again. Category:EFL Championship clubs It also was created not by me. It was created in 2010. It is bad form to empty a long-existing category out of process and then tag it for speedy deletion as empty. Revert your edits. My goal wasn't to resolve diffuse it or not diffuse. I just sorted the clubs by league. Restore clubs in Category:EFL Championship clubs as it was and start a new discussion if you want. Teterev53 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Teterev53 is quite right: Category:EFL Championship clubs is even older, it was created in June 2010 by Lloydf640 (talk · contribs), emptied out of process on 30 May 2023 by Crowsus and tagged for C1 yesterday by Liz. Again, the club pages should have been left in the category, and the cat sent to WP:CFM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Association football players by nationality

To prevent well intentioned editors from trying to diffuse the entirety of e.g. Category:English footballers into (questionable) subcats, all nationally categories in Category:Association football players by nationality should be tagged with {{Non-diffusing parent category}} - what is the easiest way of doing so? GiantSnowman 20:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:AWBREQ. But do people check for those notices before categorising? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)

Well all the nationality categories are about to be split to men's/women's footballers per last year's RfC (see #bot request for updating footballer categories above). The new men's categories can be tagged with {{Non-diffusing parent category}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as per BHG talk page, I have now (I think) fixed the articles for Northern Ireland. I am happy to manually add the Non-diffusing parent category tag to the nationality cats, won't take too long, but I'll wait til the Men's/Women's bot does its thing and then add it to both the men's and women's category for each nation (it might have to be removed from the existing non-gendered - but actually male - if that becomes an umbrella cat for both genders and all the rest). Crowsus (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Spot on, thank you. GiantSnowman 17:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Sarah Pollard be created?

This article by the BBC, BBC Radio Devon - Pippa Quelch, 01/08/2022, Devon's Sarah Pollard was an original Lioness has an interview about the career of Sarah Pollard. She did play for the England national team is this enough for an article? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No. This interview does not provide sigcov. All footballers have to pass WP:GNG since WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped. Dougal18 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of non-relevant info vs censorship

Hello all,

It's the second time I have been accused of censorship on S.L. Benfica related articles after I remove what I consider to be non-relevant content. This time, the phrase I erased is from Rui Costa's page, and it states the following:

During the 2022–23 winter transfer window, Costa promised not to release central midfielder Enzo Fernández unless a club paid the player's buyout clause, but Fernández left Benfica via negotiation on 31 January 2023, with Benfica paying to "intermediary services" for the transfer.

The user who threw the gratuitous accusations of censorship at me (SLBedit, the same one who had previously accused me of something similar) reverted my removal on the basis that "a transfer that could have ruined the whole season isn't irrelevant." I repudiate the fact he did not consider that my contribution was done in good faith, and I clearly do not agree with this reasoning. In the past, Benfica has transferred several key players in the Winter transfer windows (Nemanja Matić in 2013–14, Enzo Pérez in 2014–15, Gonçalo Guedes in 2016–17, etc) so a potential "ruinous" transfer is nothing new, it's just a common practice at the club. The only difference I see is the unfulfilled promise part, and keeping the sentence because of that makes it sound like there is some kind of agenda against the club's president/management.

I will not enter in a pointless edit war over this issue, but I would like to know if in fact that content has any encyclopedic value and if my action is disruptive (because I may be having the same approach in other articles). Besteirense (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that a promise about a single transfer is notable enough to mention on the biography of a football manager. The transfer itself should be mentioned on the seasonal page for Benfica and the player page. Spike 'em (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

it could go into a personality section or something, that the manager tends to lie.Muur (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL. Besteirense, who only recently started editing more actively after P3DRO was permanently blocked (cough, must be a coincidence, cough), came here to criticize me without having the decency to ping/warn me about this. The departure of Enzo Fernandez is notable; the media talked about it for weeks. Just because selling (and lying about it) is a "common practice at the club", it doesn't mean it should be removed/censored from the article. It's pretty relevant information, as Enzo was at the time considered the team's best player. SLBedit (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I had a doubt and said I would not enter a pointless edit war regardless of the answer, I got the reply, the matter was solved. Why should I ping you regarding this issue? If you were so certain I censored Rui Costa's article, why do you care what the outcome of this topic is? Ahaha, where do you get the ego?!

The accusation of sockpuppetry is utterly ridiculous as I am an active Wikipedia user since 2015, so you clearly are not aware of what "only recently started editing more actively" means.

Like I said before, this was the second time you accused me of censorship. If it happens a third time, you will be reported. Tread lightly. Besteirense (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No need to quote Heisenberg. SLBedit (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Besteirense: I would like to know why you removed "following the arrest of Vieira". Is it irrelevant the way Rui Costa became "interim president" (something that the board of directors made up, as that position had never existed before)? SLBedit (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, Botswana national football team

Greetings, while working to de-orphan articles, I'm finding a number of footballers who previously were members of Botswana national football team. Wondering if it would be acceptable to add a "Former members" section to the article? I am asking here because article's pageviews are One, and I want to do it correctly/or not. Please advise. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I did wrote a proposal on national team's talk page, along with an example of that section contents. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: Wouldn't it be better to create List of Botswana international footballers with 1 to 25 caps or something like that? Govvy (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

bury merge

now that the fa have approved the merger, it is time for someone to merge together the two bury fc and bury afc articles as one as they are now one team officially. afc cease to exist and only the originally 1800s club exists now. but its not a folding, its 1800s absorbing the 2019. so the playing history of 2019-2023 counts as playing history of 1800s-2019.Muur (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Milisavljevic (2nd nomination)

Can anyone find coverage of this FIFA World Cup player who has been nominated for deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Found these two clippings and this article. There's quite a few of other mentions but lacking SIGCOV. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by that AfD, because I didn't see any indication he played any games for Australia, all those keep votes for...? :/ Govvy (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

so if he didn't play? there is still notable sources about him showing notability. --SuperJew (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: - the article was kept because it passed GNG. Whether or not he actually played for Australia is not relevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't been kept yet... still needs someone to close it. Not like anyone attempted to answer my questions and the only person who answered one was Nfitz when he posted enough additional cites for GNG. It still reads copyvio ish. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You're claiming that because it's well-written it's copyvio? Bit of a stretch imo. And what do you need to be convinced of more than GNG? If it passes GNG it's notable and should be kept. --SuperJew (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)