Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

Archive 115

Multiple articles lacking notability from same editor

I came across Vaske Ruko and Abílio Neves dos Reis, neither seem to be notable having never played in a FPL. They were both created by the same editor and it seems there are many other articles like this from this editor. I have only looked at a few. All the articles I looked at are one sentence stubs, and some seem notable having played for a national team, but some are not. If anyone has the time, the editor has created over 800 articles, and I would not surprised if there are many more like the ones I checked. Equineducklings (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of those players appear to have played in either the Albanian Superliga or the Albanian First Division, which are both listed as a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Albanian leagues was stated as "fully-pro" in fully professional league, but as i remember it was mass deletion on players related to "Albanian Superliga", arguing the league was in fact semi-pro. In the regulation of FIFA, only either "professional" or "amateur", but no semi-pro or regulating wage floor. Based on fully professional league the two players passed the requirement, but discussing the status of Albanian Superliga would be another thread. Matthew_hk tc 16:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. I bet I was remembering the conversation about Albanian leagues being semi-pro, and had in my mind that the leagues did not make a player notable. Equineducklings (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Honours for friendly tournaments

An IP is persistently adding different pre-season tournaments to players honours section. I have to go to bed so can someone take a look? Qed237 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yusuf Yazici

There are some issues relating to the linking of Turkish footballer Yusuf Yazici. The page links to a doctor (who probably fails notability and has no references) - previously Yusuf Yazici (doctor) whereas it should be, and was previously linked to the footballer. The problem is that there are now two pages with the same name. A proper link to the footballer can be found at Turkey national football team. I'm not sure how to rectify so I would appreciate it if an administrator could help. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The footballer is at Yusuf Yazıcı, while the doctor is at Yusuf Yazici. Note the "ı" in the first and the "i" in the second. A number of Turkish articles use that insead of the english i, but most have a re-direct with the i spelling. ClubOranje^T 21:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

consider ESPN use i for the footballer and the "primary usage" seem toward the footballer, better move the article of the doctor. it is a common spelling transformation for ı to i, ć to c and other. Matthew_hk tc 21:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the issue I had was with the redirect / lack of redirect to the footballer. Thank you for the assist guys. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Cristian Trif

We have a new article on Robert Cristian Trif, but I have a bad feeling about this one. AfD'ing it is probably useless, as there are a bunch of sources about him, but the facts don't seem to add up. He has "decided to become a football manager in 2010, when he founded the Euro World Sports & Entertainment Agency, representing mainly coaches and players in Asian and Middle East countries." No sources for this agency outside Romania though. " In October 2014, at a press conference held at Media Rotana Hotel, Trif officially announced the founding of the Athletic Dubai Sports Club, which is set to join the professional football league in the United Arab Emirates." Yes, I can find sources announcing this founding, and then ... nothing, even though we are 2 1/2 years later now. Announcing something is easy, but if it doesn't materialise, it is hardly worth mentioning. The claim that he is " the only foreigner in the history of Asian football to found and run a football club." is ridiculous anyway. His acting career (not really of interest to this project) seems to be similarly inflated.

According to one of the sources in the article, Romania Insider[1], he / his company were rersponsible for transfers of Nicolas Anelka and of Maradona (as a coach). One would expect there to be some evidence of this outside Romanian sources, if it were true.

The people here know better where to look for sources to verify or debunk the information in this article, and it may be that I'm just too suspicious and that actually most or all of the article is perfectly factual. Fram (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

AFD it. I don't follow why you thing AfD will probably be useless; the guy is a non notable. Just because there are a couple of web articles doesn't mean there should be an encyclopaedia entry. Euro World Sports Agency doesn't notably exist - just a Facebook page. Athletic Dubai Sports club doesn't notably exist - just a Facebook page. his so called 'acting career' doesn't notably exist - IMDB is not WP:RS as it has unverified user input. His bio is written by a user called "cast" who has only ever submitted his and looks like a self written thing, or at least lifted straight from his Facebook page, and they only two movies listed - for which he is writer, director, actor, producer - are 20 minute shorts which have not even been released yet, let alone meet any notability requirements. In fact the only google hits for either movie is the imdb entry. I would seriously question whether they even exist in reality. His so-called football career is completely unverifiable and this talk of him being an agent sounds like BS to me. Some wannabe with a few bucks turns up somewhere remote and makes 'an announcement' and some local rag writer buys it doesn't make him notable. Pretty much all the other google hits are copies regurgitated by other sites desperate for some copy to add content to their sites for advertising revenue. ClubOranje^T 10:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, too often (though not always) if you nominate a seriously deficient article but where there are seemingly reliable sources about the subject, you get "sofixit", "AFD is not cleanup", "is notable" and similar keeps. Getting an article deleted because the information presented in reliable sources is wrong, seriously inflated, self-serving, ... is often too hard to bother. Having here at least the confirmation that my suspicions are not baseless and that you cme to the same conclusions helps me push towards an attempt at AfD anyway. I'll see whether I get more input here, and think about it some more. Fram (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

List of FC Bayern Munich (women) seasons

Sorry for insisting on the topic, but the other post seems kind of abandoned and I wasn't sure what to make of it. I just created a List of FC Bayern Munich (women) seasons with a seasons table, and then added a Season by season section and pasted the summary of the original entry (should it be summed up?) with all its references followed by the statistics in three collapsed tables. Is that acceptable? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it should have a color legend and added symbols for accessibility, like the men's list --SuperJew (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it wasn't needed, but anyway since it all seems obvious, but anyway I just added it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks obvious to me too, but to a casual reader it might not be, especially with 1 being coloured in some cases in green and some cases in gold. Thanks :) --SuperJew (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking for guidelines I've read in MOS:COLLAPSE that Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions, so I understand it would be better to have the tables uncollapsed? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Álvaro Morata

No, not requesting protection for page now :)

This player scored the past season 15 league goals mostly as a backup to Karim Benzema, with zero penalties. Certainly it is worth a mention in the prose, provided that it is sourced (it IS, i added it), no? Without no "extra" praise or POV of course, since we are not supposed to do that. Thus, i merely wrote "...scored 15 league goals (no penalties)...". It was summarily removed, without no summary.

If I incurred in any wiki-wrongdoing, my apologies to WP:FOOTY and the encyclopedia in general, but please do care to explain where did I err so as to avoid it in the future (yes, after nearly 11 years, I still do not grasp this and that concept, I'm afraid). Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just don't think it's important, seems like trivia to me. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Could be, and i won't argue that the most important fact is that he scored 15 goals. I just thought the fashion in which he achieved such a feat could merit a quick mention, that is all. I won't re-revert anything. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the middle ground that was reached. His role as a sub is important for context of the season so I'm glad that was kept and the part on penalties was trivial so I'm glad that was removed. It has a good balance now. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Input on format of football matches

Hi all, Would appreciate input here regarding the format of goalscorers in matches (the new format Sygmoral implemented and appears in documentation, vs. the old "<br/>" format). --SuperJew (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Darren Miller (footballer)

Could someone take a look at the above please, didn't see any evidence of notability as per pro league (only eligible club would be Dumbarton but he was only there for a few months and according to the soccerbase link, didn't play for them in any competition. Article has existed for a while tho so may be I'm missing something? Crowsus (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not notable. The fact it has been around for a while only indicates that nobody has noticed it before (there's probably quite a lot of articles in this situation) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Are these kind of templates strictly necessary. Blethering Scot 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be mostly used in statistical tables, which either shouldn't be encouraged as are unnecessary and frankly can be done without a template.Blethering Scot 17:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Season articles

I though we may had that discussion already but are penalties for and against needed? Like here. Same for captains per game? Pinging Footielad (talk · contribs) who reverted my edit. Just to get some more input and maybe someone knows the discussion about several stats on season articles. Kante4 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I also saw an article who had lineups for every game. Removed it aswell. Kante4 (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh look, another season article that consists of tons of tables and no prose whatsoever...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is all utter statcruft. Delete immediately. – PeeJay 09:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Did but was reverted twice. Kante4 (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. We should be encouraging more prose in these articles, not numerous unsourced tables. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the comments above, if they are unsourced, remove them. If they are sourced, they're not really needed in that level of detail but could be converted to a couple of sentences of sourced prose to help build up the article. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, even when sourced it should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

These have now been sourced and cited. Point taken about prose as the penalties faced (and saved) is worthy of mention as five saves in a season is the club record. Over the summer I might be able to look at 'prosing up' the article but deleting without discussion (or pointing to wrong reasons) is not very encouraging to us less experienced editors who are acting in good faith. Thanks Footielad (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But like said here, there should not be table about penalties. Include it in the prose but it does not merrit 1 or 2 tables. Kante4 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Though a season article would not be deleted per WP:NOTSTATS if the subject passed WP:NSEASONS, but the more sourced prose to balance out the stats in the article. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of info that would be better presented as a table, but the whole concept is too crufty to include in an encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 11:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to another part of the original question - "captains per game"? Absolutely not. Who captained a team in any given game is simply not notable information -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agtee. And penalties for and against? Just don't think it is needed or notable. Trivia for me... Kante4 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say captaining your club is notable. Depends if is source able but if it is then no reason cannot be included in my view.Blethering Scot 17:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a doubt about WP:NSEASONS. If an season article about a team playing in a non-professional league has a prosed season review significantly referenced in articles from newspapers such as Marca, L'Equipe, La Gazzetta dello Sport, Kicker... doesn't it pass WP:GNG? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Penalties, Season Overview, Results V, Assists, Time on Pitch, lineups or average lineups are all trivia. No doubt shouldn't be included. And Kante4 has provided me enough links to show that has had plenty of discussions and consensus has never changed.Blethering Scot 17:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean that. Since you were talking about season articles I thought about bringing this doubt here. I mean, can a season article pass WP:GNG while failing WP:NSEASONS because of its prose and references? In that case, can they stay? If so, what's the minimum standard for a non-professional-league team's season approving WP:GNG? Or no season articles at all can pass WP:GNG and they can only stay because of WP:SEASONS? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Player nationality with senior call-up but no cap

Sorry to bring this topic again, but I couldn't find any consensus in the many discussions held, and I find WT:FOOTY/Nationality slightly confusing.

Ilias Hassani has recently accepted a call-up to the Algeria national football team but he hasn't featured yet. He was born in France and has represented France at youth level. Is the call-up sufficient to switch nationality or he has to make his debut for Algeria? My understanding is that until he is still eligible to play for France he should be indicated as a French player. Soccerway lists him as Algerian, but an older version of the site from December 2016 shows him as French. According to worldfootball.net he is French with second nationality Morocco. The player was announced as "French footballer of Algerian descent" when Vereya signed him last summer.

Please note that I'm not disputing his Algerian descent or eligibility to play for Algeria, I'm only asking what icon to use (until he makes his official Algeria debut). My question is triggered by a revert by User:Dfotev to List of Bulgarian football transfers summer 2017 where he gave no explanation.Yavorescu (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep as French until he gets capped for Algeria. LordAtlas (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Season Edits

There needs to be some consensus I have noticed a user BletheringScot is ripping apart pages for the season, some wiki policy stuff very minor, but mostly enforcing a weak minority consensus on what statistics can be displayed, removing vast amounts of contributions from seasons citing this consensus which seems irrelevant.

What is the story here? Are the statistics good to be show? fb overview, fb competition, fbrs etc, these are what is being removed.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blethering_Scot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.143.25 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think those templates have made it far too easy for people to add shite stats without any regard for actually adding meaningful, encyclopaedic content. In general, I would say that BletheringScot was correct to make the edits he did. Is there a specific article you'd like us to take a look at? BletheringScot has been making a lot of edits tonight. – PeeJay 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see those points, but these stats are usually in their own section as statistics overview, and is a useful summary for readers, it is more the method and reasoning that he is making these edits e.g. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Celticbhoy97&diff=prev&oldid=785875523

, he appears to have formed his own consensus on this, is there an agreed consensus against these statistics? I personally don't see a problem with them. It seems to have started with assists which were removed now he is targeting everything he to fit his own idea of what a good template is for a season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.112.49 (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

He was correct. Main account from the user who disagreed is currently blocked and out of nowhere 2 ip's pop-up... Kante4 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Where is the consensus he was correct to remove the overall statistics, the assists yes, flags yes, the rest I don't see an agreed consensus and I believe you were even fine with them. Make that 3 ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.203.67 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-standard squad template

A non-standard squad template has recently been added to the Grays Athletic F.C. article. I attempted to replace it with the standard fs squad version but been repeatedly reverted, latterly by a fairly obvious meatpuppet. It would be good to get some input from other editors on the talk page, and possibly also some action on the meatpuppetry (which is effectively admitted on the talk page with a comment about talking to editors off-wiki) from another admin. Cheers, Number 57 22:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that standard template should be used, not a fan of the one created and its more coding used as well. If the user wants a discussion about changing the standard template then they can start that but when even teams in the same league as Grays Athlectic F.C. use the normal fs template, it is best to go with that in the mean time. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think you should be worried about white space or coding. The custom template is more aesthetically pleasing, it doesn't leave big gaping holes like the one used at top levels. I don't see the problem, this is a section clearly kept up to date, more so than some FL clubs. York City has a slightly different custom template that suits its needs well. Also isn't assuming good faith a policy here? RTB. ReallyThinBread (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We have had this talk before about using standard templates, is there an agreement that we should be using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Current squad and the FS template as standard for club article team lists? As their is an edit war happening on York City FC page NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless things have changed, I believe consensus was reached some time ago to use the table format currently used on York City F.C. and Birmingham City F.C. (amongst others) because it is more accessible, as it doesn't break the squad into two sections and gives country names beside the flags. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree the template on those pages aren't bad, I've seen many more pages use the FS template which is the standard for the Clubs template as well. If you wanted to know what country the flag is you can just click on it. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 23:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bump: we've now got IPs (likely registered users signing out of their accounts) constantly removing references, adding the old squad list format and removing cited content (flags for certain players) at York City F.C. Starting to smack of WP:POINT now. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Do we really have any consensus about removing assists information from statistics articles?

@Qed237, Macosal, Kante4, Davykamanzi, Prayer for the wild at heart, and SuperJew: All of us joined a similar discussion about a year ago, and just in case someone did not remember, I provide you the link: Talk:UEFA_Euro_2016_statistics#Removing assists.
Well, in June 2016, SuperJew cited a link mentioning 'wikitable' and some arguments (I still do not know where they came from) to advocate his idea:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics.
When I asked him for a consensus directly related to assists information in articles, he did not respond. Anyway, he agreed that assists information, if being included, "should be from a single source (preferably the governing body)". Later, the case was settled and we have an 'Assists' section with information from uefa.com.
Everything seems OK until earlier today, according to my local time. SuperJew deleted 'Assists' section of 2015 AFC Asian Cup statistics, because "assists are not verifiable as different place define them differently...". OK, at that time the source (soccerway.com) was not reliable enough nor official, but I thought we could improve it instead of deleting a section of popular information. Therefore, I restored it, found an official source (the-afc.com) and corrected information accordingly. However, SuperJew deleted the whole section again, this time because of "consensus not to include assists". Here are his proof:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 2#Assists/Clean sheets
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Assists
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Assists
Again, none of them relates to assists information in statistics articles of major tournaments, even slightly. I do not know what issues he has with assists, but to me nothing can excuse that behaviour. That section was improved by me, it has an official source and perfectly correct information. Centaur271188 (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does that article even exist per WP:NOTSTATS? To be honest, I don't see any need for it. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read NOTSTATS you'll see that it actually says there "where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article", I think this category of article is a pretty clear case of that. As for the question which was actually raised, I'd reiterate what I said there - given that the assists section is actually sourced according to the official FIFA Confederation I see no reason why they should be excluded. We rely on the governing body's definitions of "caps" and "goals", and while assists are somewhat less clear cut, if the official governing bodies of the game have defined them and made rulings on them I see no reason why they are unencyclopedic in any way. Macosal (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you actually look at the source there are only the top 10 assists. Where are the rest of the stats from? --SuperJew (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Click through to the team-by-team stats and you can see every player who got an assist. Macosal (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Regional flags at Spanish articles

Can anyone explain some editors, specially those who edit Spanish women's football articles, that there is no need to add regional flags to every Spanish team or player? Some examples:

• Primera División (women)
• 2017–18 Primera División (women)
• Spain women's national football team#Players and coach stuff

And others. Asturkian (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Tried to remove it once and was directly reverted. This should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See also: a lot of Brazilian articles. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

weak keep for 2017 Copa do Brasil, as they (mostly) were representatives of regional league. Matthew_hk tc 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed the regional flags should be removed per WP:MOSFLAG - but why do we also have a glut of Spanish regional footballer categories? I can understand Catalonia and Basque, given the prominence of their national movements/national teams, but Category:Spanish footballers by autonomous community is full of others? GiantSnowman 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a different thing. I agree that people can be ordered by region for an easier search. As there are also articles about Catalans, Basques, Andalusians, Asturians, Galicians, etcetera, categories are useful. Asturkian (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

then using the state initial to fix Copa do Brasil's article ? Matthew_hk tc 07:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edition per MOS:SPORTFLAG reverted again. What's possible to do? Asturkian (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

give him warning for edit war and fail to cooperate with consensus . Matthew_hk tc 17:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of South Shore F.C.

The article South Shore F.C. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTE

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@BSOleader: Not sure if you have a question? The proposed deletion you made has been removed by another editor as is their right, as they disagreed with the reasons for your proposal. You cannot propose the page for deletion again. You can, however nominate it at WP:AFD if you so desire. Eagleash (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the article x6 and it has its own chapter in a book on unsuccesful League applicants so hopefully it's ok now. However, this is another reminder for Kivo to clean up the multitude of microstubs he created on FA Cup entrants. Number 57 18:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57 thanks BSOleader (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Football Manager as a stats source

Might be laughed off as ridiculous, but this is a question worth asking I think.

What are people's thoughts on using the Football Manager game as a source for historical stats? I've found it to be accurate - certainly no less so than sources like Soccerway etc, reliable, neutral and detailed. However, I can understand the scepticism of people who think that a game cannot be used as a source in the same way that a website can.

I think it could help to fill in gaps in statistics on here, as the volume of research that goes into the database exceeds that put into many other reliable sources already widely used on here. OGLV (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem is that it is too distant, you can't add it as a checkable citation, and also we don't know where the researchers got the info (although I agree in general it is detailed, extensive and accurate). They might be getting info from Wikipedia! There is so much going into the DB that the developers have to trust the reliability and integrity of their researchers, and there are bound to be a few who cut corners, use unreliable sources and/or original research, or simply get it wrong innocently and nobody notices, which might be acceptable for FM but can't be relied upon for Wikipedia.Crowsus (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As a former contributer to SI's database team back in the day, I can safely say that it should not be used under any situation. I think it is far more professionally organised now the leagues / F.A's have officially licensed database products etc (although I suspect much of what FM uses is likely contributed by companies such as OPTA or gleaned from similar online sources) for recent history, but its historical info (particularly player wise) is exceptionally shaky still. Koncorde (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The stats included in the Football Manager database are fantastically detailed, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a reliable source. – PeeJay 21:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

New name for Spixworth F.C.

I've just attempted to change the name of Spixworth F.C. to Norwich CBS F.C by doing an appropriate move, but by mistake I moved it to Northwich CBS F.C. I don't seem to have the ability to undo that and start again. Can any mod help - please!!! Drawoh46 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I fail to see the problem --SuperJew (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It looked good to me at first, then realised I'd change it to NorTHwich, not Norwich. Drawoh46 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorted now, don't think I have done anything wrong............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Drawoh46 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:Just had a look at what you did. It's what I'd thought of doing, but felt there might've been a quicker way. I'll know in future, should I hit that problem in future. Thanks again! Drawoh46 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Doubt about qualifying after extratime.

In the semifinals of the 2017 Segunda División play-offs, Tenerife qualified over Cádiz as they finished in a better position in the regular season (4th vs 5th). My doubt is about how to write that fact. There is the (a) for the away goals rule or the (p) for the qualifications after a penalty shootout. But in this case, as this is not a very common way for tiebreaking, I wrote firstly a "b. p." as best positioned team. But how would be better to show that? Thank you! Asturkian (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend putting it in prose in a note. --SuperJew (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As SJ says. Append a note, then explain the process. Ideally this should be explained as part of the article too if it is notable? Koncorde (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, all the process is explained in the leading. My doubt was about how to write it in the bracket or in the tables. Asturkian (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

editor's input about issues of club nationality and association

S.A. Julio, J man708 and myself would appreciate your input at both discussions here. Thank you, --SuperJew (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

André Silva (footballer) (only an example, hundreds of articles in such a condition i believe)

In the international goals charts, as in pretty much anywhere else in the body of article, we are not encouraged to link any major countries per WP:OVERLINKING, is this not correct?

However, this particular link being Aveiro, Portugal, methinks it does not constitute overlinking as it is only one link (and also, i fail to understand the logic of "Aveiro, Portugal". I tried to reach a compromise with User:DasGermanMoses and explained it in my summaries, but he kept changing link to "Aveiro, Portugal", thus overlinking.

Not only does he almost never write one edit summary and fails to reply to any talkpage messages, but now he summarily reverted me in the blink of an eye. Inputs please, attentively (note: said user has been notified of this discussion in his talkpage) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

odd season article

2017 Kingston Stockade FC season It includes individual matches with excessive detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a notable season article? If so, lineups should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

According to United States soccer league system, the National Premier Soccer League is an amateur league. Additionally, the league isn't on WP:FPL. I'd say it therefore definitely fails WP:NSEASONS. Exxy (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Prodded. Number 57 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone explain this edit to me?

1 can someone explain why this editor is insistent on putting a third IPA, the article already has two of them, also I don't understand why he puts common name is Tottenham, it seems over logical to me. He also puts citations which aren't adding anything to the article as citations are very poor for what they do. I really don't understand his edit. Most football clubs don't start the opening paragraph. Govvy (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pointless. Number 57 20:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I felt, but the editor rv'ed my rv and it feels like he is talking an alien language to me. If I rv'ed him again it would feel like an edit war! Govvy (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also contest the necessity, and strict accuracy, of the phrase "commonly referred to simply as Tottenham". Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Spurs is clearly the COMMONNAME, but the new IPA that user is adding is definitely a more widely used pronunciation than the other two that are on the page already, particularly in the club's locale. BigDom (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 International Champions Cup

I asked Walter Görlitz why he he is using flagu template and not flagicon template on the fixtures of the article, because what he does looks horrible and is not really the MoS we use. It's not just me a few different IPs have changed it to flagicon template for the fixtures, I asked a diff question on the talk page of the article, because I got no response to that question I brought this question here about the article. The page would look better using flagicon and what is Walter Gorlitz on about with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY ? We have always used a certain style I've need seen a complaint about accessibility! Govvy (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, anyone seen what's going on, on the article? Seems Walter Gorlitz has his own agenda and reverting anyone that changes it, Govvy (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have broken 3RR. Not sure what the issue with the flags is, don't they contain alt text anyways? He seems to have an issue with flags in general. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted him. I'm sorry but his anti-flag edits look like crap. LordAtlas (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. Talk page

I was wondering if an archive bot should archive the talk page, it's getting a little much now. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the archive syntax last night, majority has been archived now. Have just run through and added timestamps for those missing so the bot can evaluate them too. Nanonic (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks for fixing it, cheers, Govvy (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Every cap listed?

On the List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo article some users want to display every cap played by him like seen here. I think we had the discussion before agreed to remove something like this but just to make sure... Pinging @Hurrygane, Qed237, DasGermanMoses, and Hichem algerino: who were active in the article. Kante4 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. It's a list of goals, not a list of caps. --SuperJew (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. To list games in which he didn't score is nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I will take on this after my shift. Hurrygane (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Definately a no. Every cap is not notable, and should not be included. It is a list of goals, not caps. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The table looks nice. The games in which he didn't score should be removed but I think we should keep the table because it depicts important details. Some users removed too much info. Hurrygane (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Table looks nice? I was close to being blind after seeing the colour festival. The format which was used was good and should be kept. And who cares if he started or came on as a substitute... We are not a blog. Kante4 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bust of CR7 is back

On 30 March 2017, Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo was created by Another Believer following it's reveal. Kante4 and myself claimed its non-notability and Number 57 AFD'd it (discussion here), which was closed as merge. In the meantime AB has expanded the article in draftspace and has now returned it to the mainspace. My question for people here is it notable. I think it's still not notable - the majority of the article is the "reception" section which includes mostly quotes from mostly minor outlets, and the major ones such as Guardian are coverage of internet/social media's reaction. Also, none of the sources are from a date later than a few days after the bust's reveal. --SuperJew (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not notable. Merge was the right thing to do. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the draft space. I suggest Another Believer (talk · contribs) tries DRV if they wish to overturn the outcome of the AfD. Number 57 14:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was told by User:Primefac to submit a technical move request. This is so frustrating... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be a lot less frustrating if you took the hint and stopped trying to write articles on non-notable subjects... Number 57 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? That's not a constructive or necessary comment. I've submitted a deletion review request, which can be seen here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 22. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Tholynski

I tried to interact in the past with this user regarding Pablo Hernández (footballer, born 1985), to no avail/reply. So, i leave this thread here (and subsequently notify said user, don't fret), step by step.

They continue to try and enhance all things Leeds, with unref'd stuff like this (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Christiansen&diff=next&oldid=785843943 and https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Christiansen&diff=next&oldid=785864882). In addition, they failed to meet WP:LEAD standards and write this (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Christiansen&diff=785836595&oldid=785835787) in the article's introduction. As in Mr. Hernández's case, they still engage in overlinking galore and write stuff that belong in the club's article (seasonal or overall), like ALL the European results of APOEL in a given season (and where Olympiacos are referred to as "European giants", and APOEL was ousted with "their head held high" after a "memorable campaign")!

Last but definitely not least (and this brings back the "healthy" discussion we have been having back and forth regarding runner-up honours in cups ;)), they added (and i removed it) runner-up league accolades during his spell at AEK, going as far as considering his THIRD place for Bochum an accolade! I will next (re)compose article to the best of my abilities, and notify said fellow user as promised; not trying to achieve a warning/block or anything like that, merely notifying the user of several guidelines they continue to overlook.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Tholynski: you reverted almost every arrangement i had made to Mr. Christiansen's coaching career, re-inserting overinfo (for example, every result APOEL had in European competition - PLEASE, it is too detailed, that belongs in the club's article OK?) and REMOVING the ref i added for APOEL's result against Bordeaux (!). I have reinstated, hope this does not escalate into an edit war. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Genuinely think his achievements of a club of that nature should be documented as a serious achievement for the Manager. Its all about opinions, and I feel my edits are a better account of the manager's history and achievement's and provide a background to an English audience of a Manager who many may not know the background of. Whats the difference between documenting the page in a detailed way for a manager like Mr Christiansen compared to say Pep Guardiola? Why would one be considered lesser and thus 'too detailed'?

I'm going to say much with saying much but I have found that the background / context information is what separates the better articles from the heaps of poorly written ones on Wikipedia. I'm all for the inclusion of notable teammates, relationships between players etc. where the addition adds context to the article. There's a fine line between overlinking and adding context, though, and where every goal, appearance or result is listed that's overlinking. It is also very important to keep the tone neutral so flattering wording should be used only in the most appropriate circumstances. And it goes without saying, reference everything. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Christiansen deserves exactly THE SAME respect as Mr. Guardiola, if that's what you are implying User:Tholynski, never edited the latter's page and have no intention of doing so, so i have no clue of the (possible) amount of POV/excessive praise it contains. User:Liam E. Bekker: the mention of the other teammates in Christiansen article were just to enhance the latter as a player, and they were unref'd, but i'll see what can be done to salvage something regarding his unsuccessful Barcelona spell; and how (and where) appropriate is it to write a team walked off the pitch with "their head held high" in an E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A?

Mr. Tholynski: AGAIN, i have no doubt APOEL engaged in a historic European campaign under this player/manager (historic, not MEMORABLE, that's POV-like language, as in other articles where i have seen people write, just because their team lost, "Unfortunately they lost the game"!), but when you write that in detail (every round, aggregate scores, etc) you have to do it in the CLUB's article, not in Christiansen's one (in Christiansen's article you can, of course, but summarized like shown in the current state of the article). Not that very hard to grasp, i wager...

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Tholynski/User:Liam E. Bekker: did what i could in the last two hours, sourcing honours so that they are not removed. About his Barcelona spell, i added an honour that mentions his lack of opportunities, without naming the names Tholynski mentioned in his version (i added +5 sources in total). He did not fare well at Barcelona because of BETTER players, all we need to know, period.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Kelechi Emeteole

The subject Nigerian footballer and coach has recently died and is nominated to appear in Recent death section of WP:ITN. However, there are some points raised which are stopping its promotion as mentioned at WP:ITNC. I request regular editors of WP:FOOTBALL to look into the matter and help improve the article. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

African footballer fact check request

Need to fact check Malomo Sunday Ajigbade and Philip Dauzi Diegbegha for notability and even hoax or not. Draft:Ante Football Club, Draft:Elemiike Ideba James and Draft:Adebayo Nurudeen Rufai seem never passed the notability line, and the hoax in Alieu Darbo was fix. If possible, afd them? Matthew_hk tc 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

All deleted as hoaxes. GiantSnowman 07:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

one more. Jonah Abutu Matthew_hk tc 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

He exists and is possibly notable if he played in the Nigerian Professional Football League; but he isn't an international player as claimed. GiantSnowman 08:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Found RSSSF article to prove he at least played in 2007 Nigerian Cup, just @Jonah Abutu: look like an escaped socks of @Philip Dauzi Diegbegha: Matthew_hk tc 02:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorting Players

An editor on 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup continues to insist changing the order in which goalscorers are sorted in competition infoboxes, citing that they've seen this in other articles, where names are sorted alphabetically with nation being a secondary concern. @PeeJay2K3 and I have already agreed on the article's talk page that the nation then name format is easier for statistical purposes. Was the latter sorting method agreed upon by the WikiProject because I don't know what to do in this situation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237, SuperJew, and GAV80: Was there ever a discussion as to how top goalscorers, if more than 1, would be sorted in footy competition infoboxes in regards to the issue above? My mind is still set on reverting the latest edit on the above article based on the method I'm used to sorting for statistics reasons: nation then surname. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of discussions (though I would guess there were), but as far as I've seen the consensus seems to be as you say - sorting primarily by nation, and then surname (in international tournaments). --SuperJew (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I can not remember any discussion about this. Qed237 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any case in which we prioritized surnames over nationalities. It sounds more reasonable to use nationalities first. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nationality first, then surnames. Kante4 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought is that consensus is not always formed by a conversation. Sometimes consensus is formed through editors creating and editing in a similar format across the project. I think this is a case of the latter. (nation then name) Equineducklings (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP redirects

I was just looking at some article creations that caught my attention. For example Pietro Tomaselli is a redirect to AS Roma, but I can not find his name anywhere in the article. Why link a BLP to an article he does not exist in? Am I missing something?

It's long established that we do not redirect players to clubs. Deleted. GiantSnowman 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

New Bayern Munich Logo

Bayern Munich slightly updated their logo, changing the font and colours slightly and removing one of the diamonds in the centre of the logo. The new logo can be found here: https://s3.postimg.org/jjlrtj79d/new_bayern_logo.png. Can someone upload the new logo to Commons (with the same licensing as the current logo)? I would do it but I don't know how to get it in .svg format. Thanks. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's uploaded at commons:File:FC Bayern München logo (2017).svg, however the club haven't officially confirmed the new logo yet (although it seems to have already been partially adopted). S.A. Julio (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Alex Sandro

filing in request to page protection page usually less efficient as the admin don't know football. But any football project member have a look at Alex Sandro for his transfer rumour and increase the page protection level. ? Matthew_hk tc 02:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Usually you'd go to WP:RFPP, it doesn't matter if they don't know football, if there's high disruption, they'll protect; there's just a backlog right now. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Now complete. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

List of English football transfers summer 2017 format

Any reasoning being these 1 2 edits? It seems to me that the previous format was better although that is just my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Inter, the format you reverted to is much clearer and doesn't needlessly double list in-league transfers. --SuperJew (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to have been used in the French transfer pages (1, 2, 3, 4) for a while now, however it makes the pages very difficult to read. The format used in the English article allows clubs to be sorted A→Z and vice versa, so there isn't any need to have separate sections as in the articles linked. Exxy (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

2019 Copa America

2019 Copa America participants list is under constant attack from IP editor(s) for quite some time. I suggest adding protection to the page. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Go here. Kante4 (talk)

I've invited IP editor (for I suspect it is only one, apart from the odd vandal) who keeps adding Curaçao as a participant, to discuss at the talk page. There are media reports that Curaçao may get an invite to the tournament, but it's wp:crystal to include them at this time. I'm hoping to impart some wiki-education rather than just stopping them making the edits. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Southampton Cup

Is this under-16 tournament notable? 77.130.195.115 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't see any references to it in third-party media. – PeeJay 16:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to propose it for deletion, but I don't think I've done it right. 77.130.195.115 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've seconded the PROD. – PeeJay 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article creator has objected to the deletion, so it needs to go to AfD. That's beyond me as an IP, so can someone else take this on? 77.130.195.115 (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Footballer categories

@Koavf: has been diffusing categories of footballer articles (e.g. removing Category:Mexican footballers if the article appears in Category:Mexico international footballers. Please can editors help confirm the longstanding consensus here that that should not be done, as confirmed (for example) at Category:England international footballers? GiantSnowman 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed it shouldn't be done. All footballers should be in the top level category of their nationality. Number 57 21:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's done elsewhere. Just look at Category:Mexican footballers and it says to be diffused and has for several years. Why would it be desirable to have a category with several hundred or thousand members which is also diffused by state? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we leave them in both. We have done ever since I've been here (over 10 years) and whoever added that tag to the Mexican category (now removed) was wrong. Personally speaking, the 'Footballer from [LOCATION]' subcategories are worthless and potentially violate WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 08:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

K, I was a little confused by that when I saw him remove the cat on Giovani dos Santos and two others, I shall restore them if I see it happen again. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

the Mexican footballers cat of Héctor Moreno and Giovani dos Santos were fixed. May need to check the list of contribution of this user for full list of footballers affected. Matthew_hk tc 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What in the world are you talking about? How would saying that someone is from a certain state and plays soccer violate BLP? How would it violate it anymore than saying he's from Mexico? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: - because what reliable sources state that X is from a specific city/state? GiantSnowman 19:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If you have instances of unsourced content, then of course remove it. That is obvious. Do you have any specific examples? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, looking at Ramón Barajas López who is the first entry in Category:People from Sinaloa - where is the sourcing there? Same goes for many, many of the entries... GiantSnowman 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only source in that article says that he's from Sinaloa. Either way, this would be no different had you chosen an accurate example: upmerge to the most appropriate sourced category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says he was born there. That is not the same. Is Hank Hill from New York? GiantSnowman 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, being born in a place means you are from that place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I was born in Canada but I am not 'from Canada'. I grew up entirely in the UK. Are all these people 'from the sea'? etc. GiantSnowman 06:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to reinstate the category at Andrés Guardado, was summarily reverted! --Quite A Character (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: so are you going to stop reverting or will we have to escalate this to ANI? GiantSnowman 19:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the discussion, but I disagree with Koavf's edits concerning this topic and wanted to state my reasons. For example as often happens in football player from country A ends up playing for country B. Thus they are still eligible to be both in Category:A footballers and Category:B international footballers. Even when people end up playing internationally for the country of their birth, that doesn't change the fact that they are still defined as a footballer from A. Also not all footballers become internationals. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you also suggesting that everyone in Category:People from Sinaloa be upermerged to Category:Mexican people? And everyone from Category:Scientists from California be upmerged to Category:American scientists? This is why these diffusion schemes exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We are only concerned about footballer categories here. Leave them in both, why can't you understand that? GiantSnowman 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Because footballers are a subset of sportspeople who are a subset of biographies which is a subset of the entire encyclopedia. It's not like there's some special category software for soccer. What you are proposing is neither sensible, useful, nor in step with the rest of the encyclopedia--not even in some footballer categories. E.g Category:British footballers would have 28,864 entries were it not split into the main administrative unit of the United Kingdom--its countries along with overseas dependencies. As it stands, Category:English footballers is partially diffused with categories such as Category:Footballers from Yorkshire and Category:Scottish footballers is marked as very large and needing diffusion (which it does). What is special about playing soccer that means that you should have articles in both parent and child categories in a geographic hierarchy? And why stop at countries rather than continents? If no one can give me any answers to these questions, it's obvious that soccer isn't somehow immune from best practice and common sense and that categories of 29,000 which can easily and logically be broken up should be for navigation. If you want lists, then you can easily either 1.) make lists or 2.) generate them with tools like I just did to make this figure of the total number of British footballers--it's not that hard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But it's not diffused - because they stay in both categories. One is supplementary to the other, not a replacement. GiantSnowman 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:British footballers is absolutely diffused because it doesn't have 29,000 entries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As it should be. Players are English, Scottish etc., reflecting the national teams. Mexico etc on the other hand... GiantSnowman 17:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have been the only user reverted when reinstating the Mexican footballers category, "interesting"... --Quite A Character (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I was reverted as well. GiantSnowman 18:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not feel better with that statement, y'know :) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: - you've gone quiet. Abraham Lincoln, a GA, is in both Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:Assassinated Presidents of the United States. Why is that? GiantSnowman 06:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Because there is no corresponding scheme of Category:Non-assassinated Presidents of the United States which could diffuse the parent, unlike geographic categories. Every Mexican person is from some state in Mexico, so it's possible to actually diffuse it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sinha is a Mexican footballer who isn't from any Mexican state (based on your earlier statement that 'from' = 'being born there'). GiantSnowman 06:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be true if I had said that being "from" somewhere is entirely equivalent to being born somewhere. You are deliberately misreading what I wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Brah, stop talking past people. If you take a step back, you'll see the everyone is against your opinion and you need to reevaluate your work. LordAtlas (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Err, you wrote "being born in a place means you are from that place" - how on earth am I misreading what you said? And yes, as LordAtlas says, you have no support for your edits/views. GiantSnowman 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. If we diffuse the "Xian footballers" categories to places of birth, there will be several strange outcomes because we have established these categories based on "footballing nationality" (there were several discussions here establishing the inclusion criteria, but they are not merely based on place of birth and focus on eligibility to represent a particular football confederation). The idea of "footballing nationality" doesn't correspond to subdivisions of a football confederation (note that we don't reflect UK footballer categories because the UK is not a football confederation, but instead has several constituent football confederations, e.g., Wales or Northern Ireland). Jogurney (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we revert the diffusion of the Mexican footballers category now? I haven't seen any counter-argument to why a category on footballing nationality should be diffused to political subdivisions of that nation (because political subdivisions don't have footballing nationality generally as they neither have a football association nor are they recognized by FIFA)? Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Club seasons

Why not include friendly matches? Andreas George Skinner (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Who said you shouldn't include friendly matches? I've always included friendlies in the Manchester United articles, provided they involve the club's first team. Obviously if it's a reserve team friendly (even if they're playing against the first team of a lower league club), I wouldn't include it. – PeeJay 21:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think they should be listed. Number 57 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I always include them, as long as they are verifiable. Gricehead (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup Final

Is an article for the final of the U-20 World Cup necessary? None of the previous tournaments have a dedicated final article, and I doubt it would have been created if England didn't reach the match. I don't see much in the article that isn't already mentioned in the main article, or that can't be included there. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I think it is not. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixutes on season article

2016–17 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 has all fixtures for the whole season listed, have been "reverted" twice already. Should be removed or? Did not find the previous discussion we most surely had. Kante4 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kante4: Hopefully this can help you: 1 2 3. There has been a consensus about excluding these results information for a very long time. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Merci. Kante4 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Honours

Why not tabulate the honours section for clubs? It makes it much easier for reading, and currently the spillovers make it looks shabby. Anakimi (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that there's already a template for it too. Anakimi (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with it, especially if it's in the MoS. More likely, it's because on average people less expend energy on format. But be our guest and format it (with an edit summary of "per MoS" would be the best IMO). --SuperJew (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, I mean, I guess we could do that. I don't actually think the current set-up looks too bad though. What makes you think it looks shabby? – PeeJay 21:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of teams and players only have the odd few honours so don't need a number. Template looks alright though.--EchetusXe 23:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Well, it just sort of lacks structure IMO. Like beyond a certain number of titles, it spills over onto the next line and directly below the "Winners" word. And the word "record" pushes the alignment off. It's probably just a minor aesthetic thing. I guess my main point here is structure. I drafted up a sample that sort of shows what I'm talking about, with both the proposed and the current convention available below for comparison. Just wanted to know if there are any objections/comments/concerns before I spend time working on other clubs as well. Anakimi (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks great to me Anakimi! --SuperJew (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks nice. How about a totals row?--EchetusXe 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

...like this? Or do you mean a totals row under each type of honour? I put the table notes into the cell because I didn't know what to do with the space that gets left over. Maybe I'm not picturing this right. Anakimi (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd thought of indicating the double/treble/X-ple winning seasons in bold/italics, then decided against it because it might be more effort than it's worth, and mainly because I can imagine it leading into edit wars and arguments about "what is considered a double/...". Anakimi (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

National team results

Hello.

During the last months, I have been creating lists of the Costa Rica national football team results per decade. One of them was the 2000s list, but the user Kvng turned it into a redirection to the national team main article stating that it fails WP:IINFO. This reason, from my perspective, seems to make sense. However, this leads me to think that there are certain articles that also fail this rule, such as all the England national football team results, which, as far as I have seen, did not vary from the ones I did for the Costa Rica national team. Kvng suggested that this comparison falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFF subject.

On the other hand, there are articles for resuming the performance and surroundings of national teams per individual year. For example, the articles I did for Costa Rica in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Save for that of 2012, all of these articles have a brief summary of the events surrounding the team during the respective year, thus preventing the articles from being mere lists (like those of Mexico).

What is the consensus here on WP:WPF about this sort of lists/articles?

• Should they be kept?
• Should they be supported by summaries in order to make it look more like an article, instead of a mere list?
• Should they be deleted regardless of their format?

--AndSalx95 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have restored to your last version, I think as there are some that agree/disagree there should be discussion before arbitrary redirect. (notified @Kvng:) There is not currently an individual year one covering that period. It is not just England that has these types of articles, Australia national soccer team results (1922–59) & New Zealand national football team results 1970–99 and others as example. I would suggest you work towards prose and formatting to make it more than just a list of results, but there are arguments for countering WP:IINFO, such as this is not indiscriminate, it is related to the parent article and simple removes some of that to a different page so the main NT page doesn't get so bloated. Also, link it from the Costa Rica national football team page and the other CRNFT results pages. Also, if it was me, I'd replace the individual year results that are there for CRNFT with decade covering ones like this - That NZ one above is a good example - but that is just my opinion ClubOranje^T 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing with making articles per individual year is, in my opinion, that it allows to include more details. Articles for El Salvador's results in 2011 and 2012 are good examples of this. Bundling them all in a single decade article would make it too long. --AndSalx95 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Template

Please read Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football.

Are you agree with this change? [2]

They want to remove links to European Competitions and links to next or previous seasons to all templates of European football.

Xaris333 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that navboxes are for navigating between articles, not between other navboxes. We should not be taking a reader away from main article space and putting them in template space, as that is not where they expect to be. -Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, the previous year link in {{2016–17 in French football}} points to the article so the reader remains in article space when navigating, which is where they would expect to be. {{2016–17 in Cypriot football}} was linking to Template:2015–16 in Cypriot football, and so on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Only articles which are relevant to both the country and the year belong in a country and year specific navbox, so linking to UEFA competitions is not relevant here. This contained a link to 1977–78 UEFA Cup, which is not particularly relevant to Spanish football. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

He have changed everything, for example Template:2016–17 in French football [3] while the topic is under discussion. Xaris333 (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Mikko Siivikko

Much appreciated if someone with better knowledge of soccer could check out the article Mikko Siivikko and see if the player is notable or not. From what I gather, and according to Transfermarkt, Siivikko never got to play a match in any fully professional league, and has only played in Kakkonen, "the third level in the league system of Finnish football". 88.113.105.109 (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I can find nothing to indicate that Siivikko was even contracted to a club who play in a fully professional league, never mind actually played for one. Should sail through AFD. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Listing of football leagues at Portal:Current events

There is a proposal to vastly increase the number of football leagues listed on the Current events portal. WP:FOOTY seems to be the only relevant project that has not been notified, so please comment here. Cheers, Number 57 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

1 - when will this idiotic trend stop (the first one i remember was Sergio Ramos, now it's André Silva (footballer), but nearly ten players have been/are being "Albanized" when it's obviously a lie)? Pathetic, but what's a wiki-man to do?

2 - honours: i may have missed the thread, but turns out a consensus has FINALLY been reached, we are to remove/not add any runner-up stuff. OK, i'll abide by that of course. But this stirs the question: so, that is for club stuff, no second places are honours. How about the international competitions? Surely, we must also not count the third places at the FIFA World Cup and akin. Or these DO count as honours? Because if they do, i find it illogical as can be.

Inputs please, attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Albanian thing is bizarre in its frequency – is it organised by some kind of 4chan website? I've lost count of the number of players who are apparently of Albanian descent. Number 57 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a long-running SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122/Archive. I've re-opened it.

As to honours, there's never been consensus to remove runner-up places. Some people don't like them, some do, some prefer to follow sources or the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Anyone who tells you there's consensus to remove is mistaken. There have been so many inconclusive discussions in the past that I'd guess we'd need a properly constituted RfC to settle the matter, and I'd guess we still wouldn't get a clear consensus. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, i see... Will notify user that notified said notification :) Cheers, thanks. --Quite A Character (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The runner up honours for domestic, European cups or international cups must have citation either in the article or on honour to be included. Some people were going on about it being clutter on players with lots of medals but I think they were being silly. I think people have gotten it muddled as there are no honours for runner up in leagues and people were adding them which started this mess. As for Davefelmer he likes to see consensus met when non ever happened, I think he has his own agenda and can be disruptive. Just ignore him and do what you think is right, if you feel something is wrong, then bring it here. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried helping Dave in the past and he is nowhere near his previous level of disruptiveness. He usually (kinda) has a point but can be driven to push things too far. Koncorde (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

List of top-division football clubs in AFC countries

Hi all

There's an outstanding move request at Talk:List of top-division football clubs in AFC countries, with no responses yet. The input of members of this project would be valuable! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesé/archive1

Hi all, please note that I have made a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesé/archive1. I will be nominating the article for FA shortly and I would appreciate constructive input as to improvements that can be made. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox for UEFA and World Tournaments

There is an ongoing discussion about flags for friendlies above, I want to highlight this also, I noticed a lot of removals from a lot of articles for UEFA tournaments, citing no flags in inboxes Here, what is everyones opinion here, is there a strong case for them to go or remain? Thanks Kyndigs (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

THe flags should be put back in. MOS:FLAG says "avoid" but it doesn't say "never use." The flag is a quick indicator as to the country the team is from. That team gets ranking points for their country. I vote stay. The need to go overboard and over-regulate is an annoyance. LordAtlas (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As i thought, if everyone agrees then I will slave my way through and re-add them all, should be fun... Kyndigs (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't think you should claim consensus with just my opinion, I don't mind if you reinstate the flags. That user should have to reach consensus before they unilaterally make sweeping changes. LordAtlas (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeh, I will hold off on some more responses first Kyndigs (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

All flags should be put back if it's an international sporting event. MoS:Flag clearly indicate that sporting events have an exception to the rule and even provides an example of a world cup page. It doesn't matter if it's a friendly tournament, what matters if it's an international tournament then the exemption should be provided. Govvy (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, put them back. I already reverted User:Blethering Scot's changes to 1991 European Cup Final, 1992 European Cup Final and 1993 UEFA Champions League Final, which just leaves all the season articles to do. – PeeJay 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Put em back. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, restore them. @Kyndigs: Welcome back, and thanks for making a new section about my issue :) My earlier post in the old one apparently sank into oblivion :( However, I think Blethering Scot has good reasons to remove flags before players, so I will only restore flags before clubs. Centaur271188 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am starting to see a pattern here! ;) Kyndigs (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

2003 FIFA Confederations Cup

Turkey was invited for the tournament. The reason is different following the languages :

• French : "La Turquie est présente après le désistement de l'Italie, finaliste de l'Euro 2000. L'Euro n'ayant jamais de match pour la 3e place, l'Allemagne (finaliste de la Coupe du monde 2002) est contactée mais se désiste, en faveur de la Turquie, 3e de la Coupe du monde 2002."
• English : "Germany, the 2002 FIFA World Cup runners-up, declined to take part as did Italy, the UEFA Euro 2000 runners-up. So did Spain, who were ranked second in the FIFA World Rankings at the time. They were replaced by Turkey, who came third in the 2002 FIFA World Cup."
• Italian : "Rinunce : Italia (finalista dell'europeo 2000). Germania (finalista del mondiale 2002). Spagna (seconda nel ranking FIFA)."
• German : "Da Europameister Frankreich bereits als Gastgeber qualifiziert war rückte zunächst Vizeeuropameister Italien nach. Italien verzichtete jedoch auf eine Teilnahme. Weil bei der Europameisterschaft 2000 kein dritter Platz ausgespielt wurde, vergab die FIFA den freien Platz an den Vizeweltmeister Deutschland. Die deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft sagte die Teilnahme aus Termingründen und aus Rücksicht auf die Fußball-Bundesliga-Vorbereitungen der Nationalspieler jedoch ab. Durch die Absage fiel das Teilnahmerecht schließlich der Türkei als drittplatzierter Mannschaft zu."
• Portuguese : "A Alemanha, vice-campeã da Copa do Mundo de 2002 , se recusou a participar, como fez a Itália, a vice-campeã da Eurocopa 2000 e Espanha, segunda equipe melhor classificada no ranking da FIFA no momento. Essas seleções foram substituídas pela Turquia, que ganhou o terceiro lugar na Copa do Mundo de 2002".

So, I want to know why Turkey was invited and a link to prove that. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This link on UEFA.com reporting Turkey's acceptance of an invitation (for finishing 3rd in 2002) mentions that Germany had declined an invitation. Doesn't mention Spain or Italy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RSSSF says that Germany, Spain and Italy all declined invitations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD: List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan

Project members are invited to participate in a discussion about the deletion of List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan, which happens to be today's featured list and appears on the Main Page, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

National flags in club's pre-season matches

Could someone point me to the rumored consensus regarding the removal of flags in pre-season matches? I think keeping the flags is not in violation of MOS:FLAG. I mean we talk about quasi-competitons like the "International Champions Cup". I would argue that these club do, at least to some degree, represent their respective nations in these tournaments? Fischer47392 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates MOS:FLAG, friendlies still fall under the governing of FIFA/UEFA etc, so technically the team is representative of the nation in these matches. Kyndigs (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For pre-season matches I only use flags for signaling foreign teams. I don't know if that's a right use of the flags, but it's useful. Asturkian (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I just read through a lengthy RfC on MOS FLAGS, and it appears there was no consensus agreed, therefore, I think in friendlies flag can be used, providing it is a friendly with a foreign team. Here Kyndigs (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty clear in wording of the policy. Flags should not be used to purely to indicate where a club are based. If the club are representing a country in a FIFA/UEFA competition then they are representing that nation as that country's entry in that compotetion. There is no such authority playing in freindlies, just because they use the rules doesn't not mean a club is doing any more than playing.Blethering Scot 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No consensus was made by the looks, and it does not look to be in violation of MOSFLAGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndigs (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It very clearly is based on the current wording of MOS Flag. A flag should not be used to represent where a club is based. Flags are used to represent nationality, which a football club does not have unfortunately. If they are representing their country in a internationally sanctioned competition where as they are their country entry fill your boots if you think adds something. If not should not be included. Blethering Scot 20:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion linked above (I took the liberty of fixing the link format, which didn't work for me) was closed as "Do not use the flag icons for friendly matches. Wider use or non-use of flag icons will need a separate discussion" (my highlighting). Looks clear enough to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it because it's against MOS:ACCESS and when a German team plays a German team it's not an international match at all. Why does it extend to when a German team plays an Italian team as a warm-up in neutral soil? They are not representing their nations and it's just an extension of the European abuse of decoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We are not just talking about cases like a German team playing another German team. We are talking about international tournaments like the International Champions Cup. Why should we handle these fixtures differently than the Champions League fixtures? Have a look at this year's edition of the ICC. We are using flags there as well to depict the nations of the participating clubs.

In addition to that this is the common style used in almost all current and past club's season articles.

Maybe a few other regular members of WikiProject Football want to address this issue? Pinging @S.A. Julio, Qed237, Kante4, LordAtlas, Asturkian, and SuperJew: Fischer47392 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the flags give some useful information, but not too fussed either way. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the flags should stay. My second choice is go. I disagree with the previous edit of no flag but the country name written in its place. LordAtlas (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fischer47392, LordAtlas, Asturkian, Blethering Scot, Struway2, SuperJew, and Kyndigs: This issue is a little bit different, but still about flags, so I think it is appropriate to leave a message here.
I agree with Blethering Scot about removing flags in friendlies, we do not really need them for matches in which everybody (clubs, referees, etc.) only represents themselves. However, when checking some UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League articles, I found out that he had removed flags in infoboxes as well. His reason was "Per MOS Flag. Should not be used in infoboxes". OK, WP:INFOBOXFLAG indeed states that, but it also points out some exceptions like "infoboxes including international competitions". Clubs also represent their countries in UEFA competitions, which are clearly international. Many readers may feel puzzled seeing winners and runners-up without anything to explain where those clubs come from. We should restore national flags in this case. Centaur271188 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Let the pretty colours and nationalism die already. We should only be using flags when national teams are playing in an international tournament, not when clubs (which consist of hired guns from all over the planet) play each other, and definitely when two teams in the same league play each other pre-season. Walter Görlitz (talk)

And for the record, the International Champions Cup is not a tournament at all! There is no ladder. The matches are all determined before the teams land. One year, the "winner" happened to play three games when the other teams played one. They certainly had more wins that the other teams. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Screw that. Teams from different leagues in different countries are playing each other. I don't even care if it's a friendly. People like to easily see that information. It hurts no one. LordAtlas (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If only there was a way to connect the event's article to the team's articles. The nations where the teams play are listed there. In the International Champions Cup annual articles, the nations are also already listed in a table at the start (because there really isn't much to say how the teams qualified for the events or anything and so the editors feel the need to duplicate information). No. I guess you're right. We need to display a pretty picture (that a blind person can't even see) and violate WP:OVERLINK (and good taste in design) by listing the flags of the nation where the team has its home field. That makes so much more sense. How stupid I've been. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures don't need to link. Pictures are nice. Again, it hurts no one and you seem to be the only one concerned. As for the blind comment, let's just get rid of books and writing and Wikipedia while we are at it. They can't read those. LordAtlas (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures can't be seen by all and so when you're conveying information with pictures alone people are hurt.

What an insensitive comment. The blind have special books so they can be a part of our society. And MOS:ACCESS says that we need to make articles available to them as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are far over reaching on MOS:ACCESS. Blind people are well aware of what they can't do. Penalizing sighted people isn't fair and missing this one bit of information doesn't hurt blind people. You talking about feelings shows some sort of underlying bias. You need to take a step back and think realistically. We should toss out nearly all of the things on Wikipedia based on how you feel. LordAtlas (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have no earthly clue about what MOS:ACCESS says about how we are to accommodate blind people, notably WP:ACCIM. Many sighted people are penalized by looking at the flags and if you want to know what country the home field of a team is from, click on the link for the team name. You need to take a step back and think realistically. There are no images on the majority of prose so your argument that we should "should toss out nearly all of the things on Wikipedia" is beyond ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a major issue, aren't the flag images accompanied by alt text for accessibility with screen readers? S.A. Julio (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What are you even on about, Walt? So because some can't do something, no one should be able to? What about completely blind people? Where do they fit in? OMG! Sighted people can get the same information plus a flag. The horror. LordAtlas (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Before things get too heated I want to weigh in, flags in friendlies have been used for ages now, I don't see any problem with it, it is good to instantly see where the opposing team is from, I would also support having prose in the friendlies to illustrate this information if the consensus goes against flags, something like

Manchester united kicked off their pre-season campaign against austrian team blah blah, etc

. Or have both to be honest. I am for flags for friendlies, but won't cause too much fuss if people agree they should go. Can we get an all round vote on yay or nay here instead of flaming? :) Kyndigs (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I don't understand. Why is one bother so bothered they exist while the information is also in the prose. It's far quicker to see the damn flag. I do agree however that flags shouldn't be used IN the prose. LordAtlas (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the majority are not bothered either way, one user is dead against it, same user as below with statistics in seasons, and removing of flags in infobox for tournaments, if everyone is good either way then we should continue to use them as they have been for years now. Kyndigs (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what Walter is on about because blind people don't see the image, software normal reads out what text is on screen and for images will read alt code and image description. So if the flag icons alt information is correct then it will be read out in running text format. However, due to the nature of cels, rows, info-boxes, a read out won't happen as most softwares will avoid them. Govvy (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think bringing accessibility into it is just generating more heat than light. The Wikipedia policy on consensus states quite clearly in the section on Determining consensus that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." As mentioned above, an RfC at the MOS:FLAG talk page, now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 15#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality, on exactly this subject, was closed as "Do not use the flag icons for friendly matches". Policy states that a few editors chatting here cannot override that consensus. If people really want to use flags in this context, they'll have to raise another RfC at the MoS page and hope for a different result. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Above says wider consensus, looks like here has more than than four in favor of flags unlike the number of people in the consensus you cited, so on your logic, project is the wider consensus. I fail to see any valid reason to exclude them, what is the real problem here? and don't just cite because MOS says so, these MOS are not set in stone. Kyndigs (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You might want to read the policy page WP:Consensus linked above. The "real problem" is that the MoS is Wikipedia's house style, established by site-wide consensus, and it can't be overturned at project i.e. local level. The site-wide MoS has long since stated that flags should only be used in a sporting context when the sportsperson or team is representing their country. Someone wanted to know if they should be used in club friendlies or not, so they opened a formal discussion in the proper place for such discussions: the talkpage of the relevant bit of MoS. That's the thread linked several times above. That discussion ran its course, and was then closed by an experienced admin who assessed the arguments made in the discussion and made a decision that reflected the weight of argument, which was that we shouldn't use flags for club friendlies because in friendly matches clubs aren't representing their country. I'm not sure what more can be said: that's just how Wikipedia works. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, can't be bothered arguing this one, too pedantic for me. Kyndigs (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in, I think unless a new RFC is raised at MOS then we have to stick to no flags in friendlies, not a huge deal to be fair, I would support a new RFC if someone raises it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndigs (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)

Does a match time for a specific match need to be posted on FIFA or a specific confederation before it can be included in the encyclopedia? I've been constantly reverting possible poorly sourced match time additions by an IP, and am curious about this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 15:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Chanheigeorge on this since I know he's the one that regularly adds match times as they are announced. I also have a discussion about this on the article's talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: I think any reliable source (FIFA, confederation, association, club, reputable media, etc.) is fine. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Transfer window

I know the argument was a bit outdated, but English (incoming) transfer window was already opened in June according to www.fifatms.com/itms/worldwide-transfer-windows-calendar/ (accessed on 1 July 2017), so the argument was the club chosed the deal effective on 1 July, usually the start of new financial year, instead of due to transfer window ( for signing to Italy, may be both window and financial reason)

I would to bring up to discussion was regarding the loan deal that bought during the expected loan period, the effective date should be date of press release, unless stated in the press release. I don't see any source that such loan to outright deal was bounded by transfer window. The effective date was in total control of the clubs. Matthew_hk tc 07:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Olympics vs Under-23

Are there any clear rules here? Some articles have "X Olympic football team", some have "X national under-23 football team" and some have two different articles. It's of course reasonable to have two different articles if they display different things, but that's not the case here. We can take Sweden U23 for example. This article includes both the UEFA tournaments before they were renamed to Under-21 in 1976 and the Olympic tournaments from 1992 and onwards. Is this reasonable or should we perhaps move the "UEFA part" to the Sweden U21 article and rename the U23 article "Sweden Olympic football team"? I guess this problem is similar to all UEFA teams, and perhaps for the other confederations as well. All this seems very unclear to me. // Mattias321 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure more people than I have thought about this dilemma. Any inputs? // Mattias321 (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oumed Oukri vs Omod Okwury

Are Oumed Oukri and Omod Okwury the same person? It does indeed look suspicious and although the two article have been tagged for merging since January there has been no discussion on the article's talk pages so I thought I'd post here. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves. Matthew_hk tc 11:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. The merger discussion can be found here. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Statistics in Seasons

I am reading a lot of conflicting opinions on this, after having read WP:NOTSTATS, I don't believe any of these are in violation for season articles. What is people's opinion here? These provide a summary of the overall season for people interested, or they can look at all the matches at summarize it themselves. Reason I am asking is people have been removing these referring to two consensus that covered completely different lists.

Competition	Record
	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Win %
Scottish Premiership	38	34	4	0	106	25	+81	089.47
Scottish Cup	5	5	0	0	17	2	+15	100.00
Scottish League Cup	4	4	0	0	11	0	+11	100.00
Champions League	12	3	4	5	16	23	−7	025.00
Total	59	46	8	5	150	50	+100	077.97

Source: Competitions

Overall								Home						Away
Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
38	34	4	0	106	25	+81	106	17	2	0	47	8	+39	17	2	0	59	17	+42

Last updated: 21 May 2017.
Source: Competitive matches

Those give a good overview how the team played throughout the season (there is a template where the overview is together with each finish) plus home and away. No reason to remove. Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this one? Here Kyndigs (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with @Kante4: This is not some unnecessary bloat but a short and precise overview of a given club's entire season. No reason to remove. Fischer47392 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the templates, it gives a helpful overview of the season's competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is every reason to remove these templates especially if not sourced. First of all a season overview should be covered by prose and is a clear failure of WP:NOTSTATS. Prose can clearly cover these without need for a stats table. The overview home and away is nine times out of ten unsourced and compiled using original research. No section in an article should only be sourced to the article itself.Blethering Scot 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly it does not fail NOTSTATS, because it is concise and informative, not overkill, secondly NOTSTATS is not a rule, it is recommended guidelines and based on discussions here people feel these stat boxes are fine to be used, and lastly summarising sourced material already on the article is not OR. You are being very pedantic and frankly disruptive now to suit your own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndigs (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that still being removed, even after the discussion here. @Kyndigs, Fischer47392, S.A. Julio, and Blethering Scot:... Kante4 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If part of the argument is that the information is unsourced, why remove it when a link is provided? I also don't see this as a NOTSTATS violation, should league tables be removed as well since they aren't accompanied by prose? The templates are just meant to be helpful to the reader by giving a quick overview of the season. If your issue is with citing the information, the article often already contains links that verify the information. {{Fb rs}} is used on over 3,000 articles, a bit more discussion is needed before entirely removing it. Continuing to remove the templates is counterproductive, especially while a discussion is in progress over the issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And again. Citing "WP:Verifiability over rules a project consensus every time. No Original research. Not sourced and compiled using original research."... can some more editors chip in please. Kante4 (talk)

Neither WP:OR (those information are obvious and perfectly verifiable) nor WP:NOTSTATS (such statistics are simple and totally readable). I would like to keep them. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As does the majority here want (just one not). I dont want to get into an edit war, that why i hope for more input. Kante4 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Any more comments? @GiantSnowman, Number 57, SuperJew, and Qed237:, maybe you can say something to that, so we can agree on something, i see the majority is for "keep", seems like a one-man mission. Kante4 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I say keep them (and source) - a useful overview and don't think it violates WP:OR or WP:NOTSTATS. --SuperJew (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion we should keep the summary as it is very small and informative. But regarding the 2016–17 FC Barcelona season which I believe started this discussion, I would definately vote for the removal of a list of all injuries, which is better to cover in "Season review", which should be in prose and not a weird looking list. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears almost everyone has agreed to keep these in seasons. I will link to this discussion for any disputes on the matter Kyndigs (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Still having issues with the same user HERE, keeps saying

I have reverted as no effort has been made to source the articles properly to meet verifiability issues. Local consensus does not overrule core polices.

anyone want to weigh in, i refuse to get into another edit war. The user is confusing OR with summarising verifiable information that is widely available, i think he expects a source to show the exact same tables! Kyndigs (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is consensus to have those included like you said. Kante4 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Attendance statistics in league season articles

A new editor Houndground has been adding attendance tables to a large number of articles, particularly league season articles. I could not recall a consensus on this issue although I'm sure the conversation has come up before. I have not seen this in many articles, but when I have, I have generally thought it might fall under NOTSTATS. I reverted a couple but thought it would be better to come here for input and/or help before doing any more. Equineducklings (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a kind of stats I like to do and to add. In the Major League Soccer there are atendance data for every season and an article exclusively for this kind of stats. I think it is useful, anyway, if you decide it violates WP:NOTSTATS, I'll accept it. Asturkian (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) [EDIT] I've just seen his contributions and well, they must be improved and formatted. That's only a copy-pasting from an Excel sheet. Asturkian (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Should be kept. They are widely reported and notable. Number 57 15:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

They continue to be created, and there seems to be little interest or consensus. In the case of this editor, the tables added are full of redlinks and the tables are nearly empty, they look bad. Equineducklings (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attendance tables should be removed if the user can't be bothered to fix the redlinks or add all the necessary info. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep attendance figures in season articles + adjust formatting where needed. Hmlarson (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For those who are not aware Houndground was/is Fussbolfan, whom I know some here have had difficulties with. Equineducklings (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if some edits are not 100% perfect, I'll try to do it better in the future. If anyone has more tips, please let me know. I'll add the required information when I have time to make the attendance tables better if you agree over here. But it has no use doing so if they'll be deleted anyway. By the way, most big sports leagues already had attendance figures on their pages, so I thought adding the missing major leagues should be okay. Houndground(talk) 6:44, 1 July 2017

Nothing wrong with the addition of attendance information. Sourced and arguably some notability....in that virtually every professional game has that data recorded. If you think it looks bad or you don't like the formatting or there is data missing or there are some red links because a template is mistyped or absent, visit WP:SOFIXIT ClubOranje^T 05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are bringing an issue here for discussion, could you please supply a relevant example link or two so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing without going searching through the extensive contribution list of a user. Thanks. ClubOranje^T 05:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@ClubOranje: Good point on examples. I generally provide them, not sure why I forgot this time. Thanks. Equineducklings (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

2016-17 Linafoot

2016-17 Linafoot notable? One of the creations from Houndground, who some editors has had issues with. Qed237 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't find notability guidelines for season articles. Are there any? It is a top-level national league, and presumably there are better sources out there than rsssf. Gricehead (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely notable if it's a top level league. Number 57 20:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As said above, being a top level league in a country makes it notable. Clearly, there are many other problems with the article. I don't think I have seen any new articles from this editor that don't need a lot of work. The editor could use a lot of guidance, assuming he/she is willing to listen. Equineducklings (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is notable. But a weak article in its current form. Funnily all three given sources for the final round standings differ from each other. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

International inactivity

Hi all, just a general enquiry. I've come across a few pages where the players infoboxes have an 'end year' under the international stats portion despite the player not having retired from international football. It seems to be more prevalent with players who haven't played for their national team for a while (e.g. Bafétimbi Gomis). Is the standard approach for active players? Should the infobox reflect only the years the player has actively played for the NT or left open until retirement - upon which time it is certain that they won't feature for the NT again? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be left open until they actually retire, in my opinion. Just because they haven't played for a while doesn't mean they won't in the future, and it's not up to us to say when a player's international career is over. – PeeJay 13:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It should have a end date, in my opinion. The end date for NT is not an indication of retirement, but merely an accurate reflecting of player's current state of career. Once the player is called up after some years of absence, it's not a problem to reopen the timeframe. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Having an end date would tell me that they are retired from international play. It should not have an end date unless they announced anything. Kante4 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? I'd like to have some sort of consensus before I go and make changes. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Rushall Olympic F.C.

Please could other editors take a look at this article? An IP is determined to keep inserting into the lead the claim that the team is known for a very physical style of play, citing only a solitary match report from the official site of one of their opponents. I don't want to violate 3RR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have just noticed two IPs have been used, but I would imagine it is the same person -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a week. Number 57 10:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Soccerbase upgrade

I was wondering if it will effect all the citation links we have throughout the footy project, at the moment they aren't working. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not. But they've already made a hash of the links for player pages for 2016/17. The season identifier should be 146, in keeping with all the previous seasons, but for some inexplicable reason they've changed them all to 149. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's part waiting game then to see what happens. Govvy (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If they're still using the same end formula for players, we just need to update the master template {{Soccerbase}}. Number 57 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Can someone (i believe only an admin can perform it now, at least i was not allowed) please move César Arzo Amposta's page to "César Arzo"? That surname ("Arzo") is his footballing name, "Amposta" has nothing on the overall sporting picture. Plus, when i type "César Arzo" in the search engine, it redirects me to the page, so i think it's safe to say it's an open-and-shut-case in terms of disambiguation.

Attentively, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 18:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's sections naming

I brought this topic a while ago, but I think there was no reply. Should women's sections be title as (women) / (ladies) or with their actual name? Is there any standard about this? Renaming, let's say, Levante UD (women) as Levante UD Femenino would be okay or wrong? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Women's football clubs in Spain seems to favour "(women") as the disambiguator. GiantSnowman 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason for that? For example, Barcelona's sections are titled FC Barcelona Bàsquet, FC Barcelona Hoquei, FC Barcelona Handbol, etc. so why name the women's team FC Barcelona (women) rather than FC Barcelona Femení as used by the club? Section naming sometimes implies choices that talk about the club's identity, like in this same example how FC Barcelona uses the Catalan language (Femení) rather than Spanish (Femenino / Féminas), so I think it's more illustrative to use the actual naming than a generic (women) disambiguation. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Most expensive keeper of all-time?

Since 2001, Gianluigi Buffon has been the most expensive goalkeeper at £33m = €51.956m (Goalkeeper (association football)#Highest fees). However, recently Ederson Moraes has been called the most expensive goalkeeper "in sterling" at £35m but only = €40m [4] [5]. So he is higher in pounds, but lower in euros...so there is a bit of a grey area. Given this, should one be labelled more expensive than the other? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

100 billion lire by fixed exchange rate is €51.646 million, but by pound is different story, or may be ranked by purchasing power of euro? However, it certainly towards Wikipedia:Original research. Matthew_hk tc

or Ederson, most expensive in term of nominal value of £, Buffon, in term of nominal value of €? Matthew_hk tc 13:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah they say he's the most expensive "in sterling". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think User:Messirulez has handled it appropriately. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

if dig out some newspaper using inflation adjusted figure, Buffon may be still the most expensive in both currency, (after inspecting 2016 and 2001 Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices) Matthew_hk tc 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but we don't tend to compare transfer fees by inflation, we simply look at the raw figures. I realise this creates a problem due to the inequivalence of currencies, especially over time, but I don't think we should start comparing fees based on inflation rates. – PeeJay 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see the point (in general) of comparing transfer fees, but if we are it should take into account the inflation, otherwise the comparison doesn't mean anything. --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

extracting correct raw fee from Italian press and audited financial reports. Certainly Handanović fee reported by goal.com was wrong. Inter signed 50% in 2012 and another 50% in 2013. Including other fee (such as agent fee), the raw valuation was €19.4 million, which half of the card should around €9.7 million in 2012, but in cash-plus-player deal, as 50% of Davide Faraoni was sold to Udinese for exactly €4 million. The 2013 fee for the remaining rights was booked as "payable + financial income/cost", which another €9.7 million was already booked as payable in 2012, but any actual change of the sum of the payable (the actual fee) was booked as aforementioned "financial income/cost". However, both Udinese and Inter listed the "financial income/cost" as a lump sum, so the actual figure never be revealed. Trying to find Tuttosport, La Gazzetta, Corriere dello Sport and other Italian newspaper source to replace it. Matthew_hk tc 18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You cannot use original sources like that, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you have been told before. GiantSnowman 18:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

it is not original source if stated in Inter financial report Handanović was signed for €19.4M, with the co-ownership effective acted as positive/negative bonus which was undisclosed. So, using the fee €19.4M as in the citation (Inter financial report) or €11M cash + Faraoni according to Tuttosport, is not a WP:OR, any further interpretation is OR. Matthew_hk tc 19:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Jesse González

Jesse González requested transfer from Mexico to US. FIFA accepted. Is he American now or once he's capped by the USMNT? According to his article and FC Dallas, he's already American, but if I recall correctly, that's not how we do this. He is on their preliminary roster for matches to start 7 July, but he could still be cut. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I learn American. As far as I know, he can't go back to being a Mexican international as FIFA just let him switch. It was a formal process so I'm of the mind that it's permanent. LordAtlas (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course he can't go back now, but no one is suggesting he would. But he has not been capped as an American and it completely ignores his caps as a Mexican. If he dies in a freak Independence Day accident (not that I wish it on him) the information would be inaccurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether he's been capped or not. According to FIFA he is officially an American international. This is completely different from someone who has never declared or been capped. LordAtlas (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Successor

I know currently Rangers F.C. was re-admitted as a new member after bankruptcy but considered as a successor, but how about Calcio Como? A new company F.C. Como (linked to Essien according to newspaper) had acquired the assets (and some liabilities) of Calcio Como but rejected by FIGC as successor (due to not re-paying the debt of old Como, according to the clause of Article 52 of N.O.I.F.), thus the new company not yet attached to any league yet, with the place of old Como in Serie C became vacant. What wording should be used? Matthew_hk tc 03:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson - Adding achievements that aren't achievements

As per title, users are adding in achievements to this managers page Anthony Hudson that aren't achievements like making play offs by being 6th place in a 9 team league, and qualifying for tournaments (not winning them). Is there precedent in things like this that what are considered actual honours for managers? NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also notable these are similar anonymous accounts only interested in this page that WP:COI concerns have been raised over before. Some back and forth vandalism not helping however but seems like some longer term edit protection may be needed to maintain WP:POV 203.110.146.116 (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there always new accounts popping up on the page whose only edits appear to be this managers page or if other edits, they are people associated with him NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 03:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help on Medhi Benatia, Juan Cuadrado and other player bought during loan period but outside transfer window

I need the project to form a MoS on the effective date. I don't see any source claimed that they can't be registered as a "permanent" player immediately. Lots of loan deal were converted into permanent deal in March and April, outside (international) transfer window. So treat the deal effective on 1 July by interpretation the international transfer window opens (WP:OR?) or stick to press release? If press release say 1 July (likes Simone Zaza) then no doubt, but not mentioned, should we concluded the effective date was the date of press release, or date of transfer window open/date of the loan originally end? Matthew_hk tc 09:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final

Isn't it a general consensus here that templates such as this should be deleted? This one was AFD'd in 2015 but saved per Not enough participation. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, we're having a discussion about similar templates at WT:CRIC right now, and I'm pretty sure the consensus is the same across the board - that these should not exist. I think they have them in US sports, but that's because they only have one professional competition in each sport, which becomes the de facto world championship. If we tried doing that for all the other sports across the world, we'd have hundreds of thousands of these templates all stacking up at the bottom of various players' articles. Hardly feasible, hence delete. – PeeJay 15:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, delete. Kante4 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pedro Caixinha

Could an Admin please semi-protect Pedro Caixinha, getting a lot of vandalism since Rangers got kicked out of the Europa League. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubt about articles

This article:

• List of sports clubs inspired by others,

These lists:

• List of Croatian soccer clubs in Australia,
• List of Greek Soccer clubs in Australia,
• List of Italian Soccer clubs in Australia,
• List of Serbian soccer clubs in Australia,

and this section, related with the article above nominated

are original researches?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The first list seems to be random assertions. The Aussie lists seem like OR as well and maybe not even notable. I'm not against them going. The Celtic thing has sources so it's not completely terrible. LordAtlas (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the only article in en.wiki with a similar section. The references are mostly the clubs' official websites and/or fan sites. Would not it be a case of promotion?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say focus on the individual pages. The Celtic one can be fixed at any time as the page in general is notable. LordAtlas (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubts

Eliseu's contract with Benfica ended on 30 June 2017. Should we change his club information to free agent? Also, should we remove players from current club season articles just because they haven't trained with the team in the pre-season although they have valid contracts with the club? SLBedit (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Club should be empty s free agent is not a club. Kante4 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that. Should we remove the club from infobox and lead? SLBedit (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese, but it seems he has not yet renewed his contract although there is reportedly a renewal on the table, so technically you are correct. First find the appropriate reference to verify he has left then do the following four things: Remove club and number from info box, change the Benifica period in infobox to be 2014-2017, change opening paragraph to say 'who last played for S.L. Benfica', add a sentence under Benfica saying his contract expired 30 June or whatever your reference says. We can always make that current again if/when he renews. ClubOranje^T 22:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For all we know, players at the end of their contract at Benfica may go on to some sort of rolling contract until they officially leave the club; I know this happens at some other clubs. So unless you can find a reference specifically stating that he has left and is now a free agent I wouldn't change anything in the article for now. BigDom (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of FC Red Bull Salzburg

Red Bull bought the club in 2005 but following a restructuring it no longer has a controlling stake and merely sponsors the club.--Dipralb (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

may be need someone specialize in finding legal filing of Austrian company to find out the actual owner, or somewhere in the club website? Anyway. BBC source is enough to update the article, just leave the owner parameter blank at the moment. Matthew_hk tc 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

FIFA U20 WC

The title for Serbia in 1987 FIFA U-20 World Cup should be removed and Yugoslavia added. FIFA does not consider Serbia as the inheritor of that that title, as can be seen in: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/teams/index.html. There was a debate about this long ago, but it was decided to let it stay because back then FIFA had no official medal table. Using the official link provided here, one can see they don't give the medal to Serbia. Any thoughts? Csknowitall (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/teams/association=SRB/index.html. Have a nice day :) Centaur271188 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not the same at all. The link I provided is an actual medal table. The one you provided for is the ASSOCIATION who get the honor. That means the honor should be on Serbia's association page, but not given to them in the actual medal table.Csknowitall (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach this as there is a discrepancy on the website. The link provided by Centaur271188 seems to credit Serbia with the title but when you use the comparison matrix on both of the above links, Serbia only have the one title (2015). Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing. They give the association of Serbia the title, because they just carried on with the yugoslavian association, but changed the name. The link he provided is not valid here, cause this is for their association only, not the actual medal table. The link I provided is an official actual medal table from FIFA themselves. I'm sure they think the same as me, Yugoslavia won that tournament, not Serbia, and it would be historically incorrect to give them 2 titles in a medal table. But if we ignore all sources, then the Yugoslavian team who won in 1987 were dominated by players from Croatia as well. So again, the link I provided is for the medal table, which is what this whole discussion is about, the other link he provided is for an association, which means the honor should be added to Serbia's football association page, not on the actual FIFA U20 medal table.Csknowitall (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Csknowitall and Liam E. Bekker: I think FIFA does not mean 'association' there literally. Even though the word 'association' appears on the link, the pages themselves are about 'teams'. Name of that section is "Teams", comparison matrix says "select a team", you can click "All teams" to open "Team browser" page, etc. FIFA recognizes SFR Yugoslavia team won 1987 tournament, FIFA U-20 World Cup shows that information. It also awards Serbia team 2 U-20 titles (1987 and 2015), and our article mentions the same thing as well. We may question its consistency, but as an editor, I see no problem as long as we follow what the sources say. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, it says Association, so that's what we have to go with. The link I provided is for an official medal table, and the other one is for their association only. Wikipedia is about following a source. It's also the same with FIBA, if there is an official medal table, then that's the one we have to go for, and FIFA clearly doesn't credit Serbia with 2 titles as shown. I agree that FIFA credits the serbian association with the title, just because it's basically just the yugoslavian association they carried on from. What I want to change is the medal table on the FIFA U20 article to fit the table FIFA themselves have made. There's not really anything to discuss about if the source is reliable or not. It's an official medal table, period. Again your link is for the association, mine is for the medal table. There's no disrespect from my side, I simply want to let people know they are two completely different topics and sources.Csknowitall (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: So is it about what you think? If you think my sentence is offensive, then I am sorry. You think your link is an official medal table (it seems to be a new feature, and it only says "most victories"), you think mine is only about 'association' (naturally, titles can only be awarded to teams, because associations do not play matches). I think my link is no less official than yours, and it means 'team' clearly. Centaur271188 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! it's not about what anyone thinks! it's about the fact that my source is an official medal table, yours is NOT.Csknowitall (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually can't seem to find this "official medal table". Is it this one (under "Teams")? Because the link Csknowitall provided just says "Top teams" and "Most victories" and doesn't show more than 5 (unless I'm looking in the wrong place). The Serbian Association FIFA page in the link provided by Centaur271188 has it listed (and the Association is what the team represents), whereas the link I found credits it to Yugoslavia. The Serbian U20 page says it's the successor to the Yugoslavian team, so it might be fine just the way it is now IMO. Anakimi (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

FIFA's comparision (1 vs 1). Fifa: Serbia win first title. Not an easy situation, but I guess with the footnote it is fine. -Koppapa (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I agree with your edit on the mentioned article. Probably the best way is to mention both Serbia and Yugoslavia in the medal table.Csknowitall (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

1 - Ibán Parra: does this chap merit an article? Has only played top flight football in the Andorran Primera Divisió and Finland's Veikkausliiga. Yes, still have not done my homework properly after 11 years, but I'm not 100% sure if these are professional, I would answer "no" if asked without consulting the guidelines;

Veikkausliiga is fully-pro --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

2 - page move(s), can someone move the pages of the brothers Juan Epitié Dyowe and Rubén Epitié Dyowe (the surname "Dyowe" is not necessary, they are known to the sport as "Epitié")? I tried to, but was not allowed (admins to the rescue!).

Cheers, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surname sure (typo edited on 11:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)) "Epitié Dyowe Roig" is the surname or not (missing hyphen?) Sometimes determine surname is a bit OR (so i am not sure should use the template Spanish name), but certainly "Juan Epitié" is a common name without OR. (eurosport, AS) Matthew_hk tc 11:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice the hyphen at the (reliable) BDFUTBOL.com website. That makes (or could make) the matters different... --Quite A Character (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Still "Juan Epitié" is the common name, just need to fix the template and content to reflect full name "Juan Ramón Epitié-Dyowe Roig". Or alternatively move to Juan Epitié-Dyowe? Matthew_hk tc 11:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the second option is better, but that's just my opinion. --Quite A Character (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the correct common name/s is/are, both articles will need a history merge first, because both have been copy-paste moved in the past, with significant history left at the moved-from pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

i must be cleanup my watch list. I did not notice it was created by me and c&p move on 11 March 2010‎ Matthew_hk tc 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How about Mr. Parra, any opinions? --Quite A Character (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember played in UEFA Champions League qualify round, is he notable by these caps. I think he is non-notable unless international caps.

In the edit summary i saw someone asked Finland career may made him notable as professional footballer. Since 2000 Veikkausliiga is a professional league, just need source to verify the caps shown in infobox. Matthew_hk tc 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

1966 FIFA World Cup all-star team

Would someone mind reverting User:BuzzerBee123's contributions to 1966 FIFA World Cup? They're deviating markedly from this source (), which seems to have been mysteriously missed off the article itself. I'd do it myself, but I hit 3RR last night. I thought they were finished, but it looks like they've come back for more flights of fancy. – PeeJay 13:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What the heck is sporting99.com? How do we know that its information is even correct/reliable.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the entire section, but it's better than no source at all, which is what User:BuzzerBee123 seems to be working from... – PeeJay 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Even though I had my doubts about the reliability of the source, I have restored the page and added a source row to the table. No problem if others feel the section should be removed though. Do other World Cup (finals) articles have the 'All-star' team section? If so where is it sourced to? Eagleash (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Some do and some don't. Newer editions have more reliable sources (e.g. fifa.com, the New York Times), probably because it was easy to find digital copies of sources for those time periods. I'm not sure why some articles don't mention them (e.g. 1970 FIFA World Cup), I have not investigated if the teams were removed at some point or just never added. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that this All-star Team is a thing now. But according to a piece HERE on the FIFA website, The first-ever All-Star Team at a World Cup was designated in 1994 and included players such as Dunga, Hagi, Roberto Baggio and Romario. So could someone please tell me, preferably wth reference to reliable sources, where these earlier ones come from and what, if any, relationship they have with FIFA? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly the All-star team that FIFA started picking in 1994 is no longer a thing. The last time FIFA chose a team was in 2006. Currently they hold a fan-vote, and in 2014 Castrol did their "Castrol Index" based team. According to wikipedia (FIFA World Cup awards#All-star team) prior to 1994 all-star teams were chosen by a panel of experts. Presumably the only practical difference in '94 was that the panel selecting the teams was made up of FIFA employees, rather than journalists, however my knowledge on the subject is limited. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think either you are slightly mis-reading that article or it is badly worded. No official all-star teams were named prior to 1994, by FIFA employees or anyone else (individual newspapers or magazines may have chosen their own, but there was no official selection). The teams for earlier tournaments were retrospectively chosen by FIFA at some point after 1994, but surprisingly there seems to be pretty much no reference to them anywhere online -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The all-star teams were added to FIFA World Cup awards in a single edit, unsourced, in 2006, and the sporting99.com reference wasn't added until five years later. Obviously sporting99.com isn't RS, but it'd be nice to know whether it copied its content from Wikipedia or from elsewhere. Incidentally, the corresponding page on fr.wiki lists teams from 1994 onwards, plus 1938, when it says FIFA chose an all-star team but came under so much criticism for omitting Silvio Piola that they never did such a thing again :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone for removing the "Wikipedia is not a stats site" rule since it doesn't seem to apply any more? Britmax (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What rule specifically are you referring to? Wikipedia is a stats site, as long as those stats are important to the understanding of a particular topic. I also fail to see how this is related to the topic being discussed. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

South African changes

Amazulu failed to win promotion on merit (finishing 5th) in the National First Division and so bought the franchise of the team that finished first (Thanda Royal Zulu F.C.) with the intention of playing in the top tier. Thanda Royal Zulu appear to be no more and have essentially been replaced with a newly formed team called Richards Bay F.C.

The Premier Soccer League have released a statement:

The club formerly known as Thanda Royal Zulu F.C. will campaign in the Premier Division of the League under the name Amazulu Football Club and be relocated to Durban.’ The PSL further confirmed that ‘Richards Bay Football Club will campaign in the National First Division and be located in Richards Bay’, and that ‘the club formerly known as FC Cape Town will campaign in the National First Division under the name of Ubuntu Cape Town Football Club.’

It seems that FC Cape Town article should be moved to Ubuntu Cape Town F.C. but I'm not entirely sure what to do with the others. This is a bit of a mess. Any suggestions for the best course of action? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think keep Amazulu where it is and note that they bought the franchise of Thanda Royal Zulu. I would err on the side of renaming Thanda Royal Zulu as Richards Bay if it can be shown they are an effective replacement/continuiation of Thanda Royal Zulu (e.g. same stadium, players, coaching staff and officials). Number 57 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The team that was known as 'Thanda Royal Zulu' has become 'Amazulu', so that needs moving accordingly - but after moving the team that was known as 'Amazulu' to 'Richards Bay'? GiantSnowman 21:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nélson (footballer)

Seem Nélson Veiga and Nélson Marcos both known as just Nélson, should leave them with surname as disambiguation , or Nélson (footballer, born 19XX), or Nélson ([country] footballer)? Matthew_hk tc 13:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would rename "Nélson Marcos" to "Nélson (Portuguese footballer)" – although he was born in Cape Verde. About "Nélson Veiga", I don't know if he's known simply as Nélson like you mentioned; if he is, then I would rename it to "Nélson (Cape Verdean footballer)". SLBedit (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Seem Nélson Fernando ([6]) and Fernando Nélson Jesus Vieira Alves ([7]) also notable. So better not move it or use DOB. Matthew_hk tc 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, "Nélson (Portuguese footballer, born 1983)". SLBedit (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Look ok, but in English football, one of the Nelson was (incorrectly) known as "Fernando Nelson". Matthew_hk tc 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That might be a different Nelson, Fernando Nélson (the Fernando Nélson Jesus Vieira Alves you noted above) is a real footballer a few years older than the ones under discussion. ClubOranje^T 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nélson Veiga is not known as just Nélson, present title of article is 100% fine. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

just someone moved Nélson Marcos to Nélson (footballer) but reverted by me. So asking for necessarily to move them as disambiguation. Matthew_hk tc 16:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Leave them as Nélson Veiga and Nélson Marcos would be my take. There is more than one person known simply as Nélson I don't see the point in renaming either of them to Nélson (footballer) or any such thing, they both actually have perfectly good surnames to differentiate them by. They are both already at Nelson (given name) And if they are often known as Nélson, then note that in the opening paragraph, same as Fernando Nélson and Nélson Pereira are. Nélson Veiga could do with some inline citations. Nélson Marcos link at NFT shows his name as Nélson Augusto Tomar Ramos, as does ForaDeJago, so don't know what that's about. ClubOranje^T 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list of sources we shouldn't be using?

I know there are a few sources like the Daily Mail we shouldn't be using, but I was wondering if there was a project list of sources that we shouldn't be using. Govvy (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

On another note, should Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links not go through a type of review after a certain period? Govvy (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

List of English football transfers summer 2017

On an overlapping topic regarding flag icons, I asked a question on the talk page there and got no reply. I don't mind the flag icons in the first column for players, but from club to club, it just looks odd having a flag icon here and there. It would be better to remove them from those two columns and there does seem to be an over-use of flag icon use of late! The other problem is that, shouldn't there be a column for references? Shouldn't each transfer have a reference number after it, to say, a confirmation of said transfer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govvy (talk • contribs) 17:41, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the article is little messy and disjointed. There's a few references at the bottom which presumably confirm the transfers claimed, but it makes more sense to give each transfer its own source. I dislike the use of the flags as well, as I don't really think it adds a great deal to the article. Additionally, why are the dates in bold text? Perhaps I'm biased because I've contributed towards it, but I think articles like List of Scottish football transfers winter 2016–17 and List of Scottish football transfers summer 2017 are far tidier than their English counterparts. Exxy (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see a problem having the odd flag present for clubs that aren't from England. It's better than having a flag for every club, and it's also useful to note which players are coming from overseas. – PeeJay 18:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that matters so much, if you want to know where a club is, click on it, no need for dam flags all the time. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not about individual clubs though, it's about seeing trends of where players are coming from and going to. If you have to click on each individual club to see where they're from (assuming you don't know automatically, as many people wouldn't), that's a real pain in the arse for anyone who's actually using Wikipedia as a resource. – PeeJay 19:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The summer Just while talking about that page...."This is a list of English football transfers for the 2017 summer transfer window. Only moves featuring at least one Premier League or Championship club are listed. The transfer window began once clubs had concluded their final domestic fixture of the 2016–17 season, but many transfers will only officially go through on 1 July because the majority of player contracts finish on 30 June" So how come it lists a whole lot of transfers from February and March? Did these clubs finish their season early? ClubOranje^T 01:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, they happened after the end of the January transfer window, so it wouldn't make sense to put them there. – PeeJay 11:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

International transfer window of England was opened on 9 June 2017 (FIFA source, accessed on 1 July 2017), but i am not sure about short-term loan in domestic league (i.e. within England lower league), is there any transfer window. Also, i don't think loan turn permanent deal still require transfer window. So, the statement should be rewritten, as some deal was only chose to start on 1 July by financial reason. Matthew_hk tc 11:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well at the moment I still feel the English transfer article seems not right, I do prefer the Scottish articles. Flags or no flags? Govvy (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Any comment I make on the talk page seems to fall of deaths ears. What about having three tables, first being transfers, second being signing of the free agent list, the third for loans. It feels like anything I say is ignored by ‎Evertonfc13, it's like he has claimed ownership of the article! :/ Govvy (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming South American U-17 Championships

Guys, this is the only article in the youth categories that's named "Under-..." and not just "U-...". I think we should move it (and all articles for each edition) to just South American U-17 Football Championship. Opinions? Ipsumesse (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems CONCACAF and UEFA are "Under-" too, while AFC, CAF, OFC and FIFA are "U-". Since our youth national teams are listed as "county national under-X football team" I'd say the move should be the other way – from "U-" to "Under-". --SuperJew (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think just "U-" is more common. Nevertheless yours is a valid argument. I won't do anything if there's no more opinions on this. Ipsumesse (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson

Can this page please get some protection, always seems to have new IP users that first edits are his page trying to make it a fluff piece and it’s annoying. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The page concerned is at Anthony Hudson (football manager). 92.26.171.185 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1962–63 Cypriot Second Division

The article 1962–63 Cypriot Second Division has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Height conversion

The documentation for the Template:Infobox football biography supports automatic conversion if the height is specified as "X m", "X cm", or "X ft Y in". Why then, whenever I replace "height = {{height|m=1.73}}" with "height = 1.73m" which produces the same result (Height: 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) ), I quickly get zapped accompanied by a less than polite edit summary. 92.26.171.185 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

None of the described edits from that IP appear to have been reverted, so perhaps you are referring to edits made either from a different IP or a logged in account. without knowing which it is difficult to say as I cannot see the edit summary or who made the reversion. ClubOranje^T 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus football templates

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates.

Hello. Pls see the conversation. I am more active in Greek Wikipedia. I thought that wasn't a problem to have those templates. But, I don't know all the rules of English Wikipedia. Pls, say your opinion in the discussion. Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Andi Qerfozi

Hi Kudpung has kindly undeleted this following some kind of edit conflict after I deprodded it. In any case, I'm uncertain whether this chap passes either/both NFOOTY or GNG, and I'd appreciate your expert views. Happy for someone to AfD it if appropriate. And if some of the current references are junk, feel free to remove them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

European competitions links and country football templates

Hello. User:Robsinden thinks that articles like 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup should not be included in navboxes of this kind: Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football, Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football.

He starts removing the links: [8]. Are you agree with it? Is he right? We should not add that kind of articles to the templates?

@ZZ86:, @Frietjes:, @PeeJay2K3:

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

League tables with the new Module:Sports table

Hi, people. Is there any "official" intention to replace the tables in old seasons to the new module one, for avoiding the use of deprecated templates or for improving some articles? E.g. 1989–90 La Liga#Final table or 1995–96 Premier League#Final league table. Asturkian (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for editors to devote their energies to replace the tables in old seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if eventually all standings tables were converted to the module, but as of now it's not much of a priority. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

2017_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup

Anyone want to deal with this IP's vandalism? LordAtlas (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd just put in a WP:AIV against the IP 190.232.12.21 as all their edits appear to be on Football World Cup pages are vandalism of the flagicon that get reverted. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 23:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is now protected. Equineducklings (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jurgen Van der Velde

Any experts in Belgian football here? Is this player notable? Also, there are two pages for the same player (Jurgen Van der Velde and Jürgen Van der Velde), both created by the same user, who doesn't have any other WP contributions, and the writing style isn't very encyclopedic (WP:Promo maybe?). --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Played for Molenbeek in the top level 1997–98 Belgian First Division which is in WP:FPL. So should be notable. Second article is at correct name. -Koppapa (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Something very wrong in Indonesian Liga 2 club squad lists

It appears at first glance that one/many IP user(s) have been having a field day with squad lists for Indonesia 2017 Liga 2 clubs. These IPs have a modus operandii of adding foreign players to the squad lists of the Indonesian club. Sporadically they also go to the player page and update that, and it was this which brought it to my attention (the claim being that Fernando Lopes Alcântara had moved to PSPS Pekanbaru and played seven times since his last appearance for Club Sportivo Sergipe on 25 June. The Indonesian club have only played one game in that time)

Starting from that one club, tracking contributions for the IP that made that change, led me to 7 other articles and three other IPs doing similar edits before I ran out of time. Some have been reverted (and @Madhon335: seems to be a (possibly the only) voice of sanity in this space).

This could do with more eyes from the community. Sourcing on these club squad lists is sparse in general, and it may be there is an argument for blanking all until sourced information can be provided

The trail so far:

• PSPS Pekanbaru edited by 180.246.139.171
  • (also edited Celebest F.C. - edits reverted, article also edited by 36.82.230.253 and 36.66.232.211 below)

• PSMS Medan edited by 180.248.118.127
  • (also edited Persik Kediri)
  • (also edited Perseru Serui)
  • (also edited Mitra Kukar F.C. article also edited by 36.66.232.211 and reverted - this is a sourced squad list)
  • (also edited Persita Tangerang) partially blanked since)

• Persiraja Banda Aceh edited by 36.66.232.211
  • (also edited Persikad Depok)

Happy hunting, Gricehead (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Issues updating three Club article seasons

There appear to be on three articles a resistance to any moving away from the use of Tables. I have updates the latest season articles to the Football template, and each time this is reverted. The teams in question are Manchester United, Stoke City and Birmingham City. In each case it appears as if one editor and one editor alone (three separate editors), on the pages, are blocking changes. This is not helpful as it is an unnecessary resistance all in the name of consistency. Each of the users is using the identical argument. I am not prepared to go on a crusade and enter into a revert war with all of them, but these three users, are hampering efforts to update Wikipedia. Can there be some general discussion here as to the best way forwards, and if the tables for representing the season articles should be stuck just because it is the way previous season articles have been done. This appears to be an argument to block all change, and prevent the articles moving forwards with other season articles from other clubs. On the Stoke article, and the Manchester United article there is even resistance to changing the name displayed of the EFL cup, and an insistence on calling it the League Cup still. This needs discussing, or there will be a general difficulty in any other users apart from the three who currently edit the three respective pages from editing the pages. Sport and politics (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason why there is resistance is that, while you assert that this is "progress", no one has yet provided any evidence that the collapsible footballbox is actually any better than a table. Tables are neater in that they take up less space on the page, and they don't contain any unnecessary information such as the opposition goalscorers. I agree that the opposition goalscorers should be mentioned on the page, but that is why we insist on including prose sections in these articles; Wikipedia is not supposed to be page upon page of sprawling statistics, so the more efficiently we can display this data, the better. Yes, consistency is a good argument - who wants to go through 100+ years of Manchester United seasons and change them all to an entirely new format? Not me! - but a better argument is that this is actually the best system we have available right now. Again, if there's any info you think should be included in the tables, I for one would be open to suggestions, but I vehemently oppose any suggestion that we should transition to using the collapsible footballbox across the board. – PeeJay 09:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I would happily begin going through and converting the older articles to the use of templates and away from the tables. Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe don't do that until we ascertain that the templates are actually better than the tables, okay? And if we determine that the tables are better, would you mind changing all the others to use them? – PeeJay 11:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The collapsible footballbox causes increased loading time, often contains unsourced content and is largely used in articles with no supporting prose. Furthermore, I see no use of the collapsible footballbox in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, therefore it should not be imposed on articles using tables. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons isn't exactly the greatest resource, seeing it only has three edits since {{Football box collapsible}} was even created. But either way, I think both styles are alright, each with their advantages and disadvantages. I see no reason to convert from one style to another though, as neither method is definitively better than the other. As for the prose issue, I have seen many articles which use the table style and have no prose. Also, most of the collapsible boxes I see do include a source. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that collapsible footballbox has more unsourced content. If editors are adding unsourced content, they'll add it unsourced in whatever format it's being added. I'd actually think the footballbox is easier and more intuitive to source, as it has a field "report=" where you add the report source. Furthermore, regarding prose comments, if the format (table/footballbox) can't be understood easily without prose, I think that's a disadvantage. IMO, the whole point is to have the important information condensed and easily accessed (so saying "yes xx should be available info, that's why we have the prose" doesn't seem to me a valid point). Also, as I have not come across many seasons using tables, could someone kindly provide a link(s) to example(s)? --SuperJew (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I don't necessarily think that the collapsible footballbox has more unsourced content either, but it does leave itself open to WP:LINKROT due to the fact that we tend to use the |report= parameter as a reference of sorts. This can obviously be fixed, but again, I don't think it's the major issue of the collapsible box. As I noted above, the collapsible box, despite being collapsible, takes up more space on the screen; its use of space is totally inefficient, especially when collapsed. With the tables, you can see immediately who the goalscorers were and what the attendance was, whereas with the collapsible box, you have to click on the "expand" button to do that - if you need to do that for every match, that's a minimum of 38 clicks just for the Premier League games, let alone cup competitions. I've even added a "Referee" column to the tables at 2016–17 Manchester United F.C. season so you can see who the referee was without needing to click on anything. Furthermore, as I've stated before, the opposition goalscorers are not needed in an at-a-glance table about a specific club's season, hence why limiting mentions of the opposition to the prose is a logical move; as for bookings, which I see all the time when I look at club season articles that use the collapsible box, those are not needed whatsoever. We don't put them in the footballbox template for articles such as 2016–17 UEFA Champions League group stage, so why are we doing it for club season articles? Finally, the whole concept of a collapsible box is flawed due to WP:COLLAPSE, which states "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." (bolding is part of the original). – PeeJay 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually think it's great - it shows you the important information about the match: date, score and location/stadium (depends on how ppl use it) and when you expand you get the rest of the info: k.o. time, scorers, crowd, referee and a link to report. Though I agree that for some cases it would be useful to have a "show all" button. --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The table shows you most of that stuff as standard and without violating WP:COLLAPSE. The only thing it doesn't show you is the kick-off time, which could easily be added. – PeeJay 12:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As requested 2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season, 2017–18 Stoke City F.C. season, 2017–18 Birmingham City F.C. season.

The biggest issue I have with the tables is they are not easy to edit. The template is a lot easier to edit. For a comparison with the Stoke article here is a version of the page with the collapsible table as opposed to the table. Stoke with template Sport and politics (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO the collapsible footballbox is preferable to the tables as it can include much more information without taking up that much more space (when collapsed). 11:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the tables, I'll also add that having the format of the venue as H or A (linked) hides information and might even border on WP:EASTEREGG. --SuperJew (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Easily changed. – PeeJay 11:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The suggested additions to the table feel very much like trying to re-invent the wheel. With the proposed adding more and more information to the table it feels like there is an attempt to make a square peg fit in a round hole. How long is it before it is suggested the table contain identical information to the template? The other issue here is the ease of editing of the template when compared to the table. The table requires good knowledge of wikicoding, the template is what you see is what you get, which is an awful lot easier to edit. The maxim of keep it simple, stupid comes to mind here. Sport and politics (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly no pleasing you. The template is very much not WYSIWYG. By the way, there is absolutely no suggestion that the table will ever look just like the template; if anything, the template started off as a way to replicate the table. For one thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out and no one has addressed, the template uses far too much whitespace. I just looked at the 2016–17 Chelsea F.C. season article and in the same space on my screen that I was able to look up info for about 30-35 matches on 2016–17 Manchester United F.C. season, I could only see about 10 matches for Chelsea. Admittedly, that could be fixed by removing the unnecessary info about bookings, but even then there's still massive space inefficiency horizontally as well as vertically. – PeeJay 12:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about PJ, I can see for Man U 18 matches and for Chelsea 25 matches. --SuperJew (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you have a smaller screen than me. – PeeJay 13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Did you have the Chelsea matches expanded? That's what I was talking about, since you can't see the same info in both articles without expanding the template. – PeeJay 15:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I had them not expanded - that's exactly the point, that at a glance I don't need all the info - only the important info, and for specific matches I may want to expand to get more info. Also, if you want to compare by expanded or not, that Chelsea page is a bad example because there are cards included in the footballbox, which has been previously discussed here and the consensus reached was not to include them (not including them would obviously make each expanded box much shorter). --SuperJew (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to compare with a season article that doesn't include cards in the template, but even if you removed the cards from the Chelsea page (which someone should go ahead and do, btw), you still wouldn't get as much info on screen and you'd still have the issue of WP:COLLAPSE. – PeeJay 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The table is a complex beast and the template is a simple beast. On the template go to |score= and just put it in, go to |date= just put in in,and so on. No hassle no fuss, nothing difficult or complicated. With the table you have to work out which || to put the information between or after, and making sure the table has been closed off properly, and the table parameters do not continue down the page so referencing back to the top of the table is needed. All of which is complex, particularly to those unfamiliar with wikitable mark up coding. There is also a need to know what the Wikicolor coding is to change the colour for Win, Lose or Draw. The template does that automatically, which is far simpler and more convenient. There is no suggestion of the table and template looking the same. It simply feels as if the "ok i'll add that information, too" in to the table is going to lead to the same information in tables and the template. There is no suggestion of the two looking the same. The argument on space inefficiency is purely aesthetic, some will think tables looks better, and others will think the template looks better. I have no issue with the look of either. I am all for the template because it is a damn sight simpler to use, and is a damn sigh simpler for everyone to use, experienced or new to Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're keeping everything as it is then. Please, no more whining about how you can't have your way. – PeeJay 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

From what is being gathered here the main issue being expressed with the Template is simply it doesn't look very good on some screens. This is hardly compelling as a point of furtherance. The over-ridding thing to remember is that Wikiepida is a broad and wide community which needs to attract and retain new editors. I fail to see how the complex and difficult to use table that requires a lot of prior Wikipedia use knowledge does that. When compared to the very simple template, the table is blown out of the water; ease of use of the Template is without any doubt considerably better. Sport and politics (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is, of course, your opinion. Personally, while I might agree that it's more obvious what each parameter does in the template, I don't think the table is prohibitively difficult to use and given a modicum of concentration and logic, it should be pretty easy for a new editor to pick up. Not everything needs to be easy for everyone to do; there are, by definition, skills that not everyone can perform. But to answer your other point, aesthetics are not the only negative aspect to the template, at least in my book; the template includes info on the opposition goalscorers, which - as I explained above - is not necessary in an article about a specific team. If a goal scored by an opponent is at all relevant to the subject, then it can be mentioned in prose, but there is no good reason to include them by default, even in a collapsible template (which, as I have also explained above, is a violation of WP:COLLAPSE). – PeeJay 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree regarding opponent scorers being irrelevant... There is a huge difference between being scored against by say Cristiano Ronaldo and between being scored against by an 18 year old defender in his 2nd game. --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. If a specific goal is relevant, mention it in the text account of the game, but there's no reason to mention every single goal scored by the opposition. – PeeJay 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the point on goal scorers, where are own goals listed in the tables? Surely they are at the very least notable to the match concerned. How do they get recorded if there is nowhere to record the information, when there is no where to record who scored for the opposition. In relation to the skills of editing the article, it is very much creating a barrier unnecessarily to the editing of Wikiepdia. Why use something which is more complicated when it doesn't have to be? The use of prose buries information unnecessarily, the articles are supposed to summarise the results, not create disparate information locations. Sport and politics (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said already, if a specific goal for the opposition is relevant, mention it in the article prose. If you include one goal for the opposition in the table/template, then you have to include them all, which isn't necessary when the article is about one specific team; you don't have to do that in prose, per WP:SUMMARY. – PeeJay 15:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't address own goal scorers though, where is that information put, it is clearly notable to the club, and the game at hand. In the scenario of the current tables own goal scorers for the subject article scoreline are recorded (opposition player), but not own goal scorers from the subject article team who score for the opposition. Sport and politics (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Transfer fees

I just want some clarification if possible regarding transfer fees. If neither club announces a fee for a player, are we justified in using a fee from a news organisation? I only ask because Romelu Lukaku's fee has been widely reported as £75m plus add-ons, and that fee has been consistent across all the reports I've seen; however, neither Manchester United nor Everton have announced the fee officially, so it's impossible to know where the media is getting its info from. When is a source "good enough" when it comes to transfer fees? – PeeJay 17:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"The fee is reported to be..."? GiantSnowman 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy enough in prose, but what about in these tables? – PeeJay 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

List as undisclosed and add a footnote listing the reported price? GiantSnowman 06:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It has genuinely been a long time since clubs in the top few divisions declared the actual transfer fee, so any lists will be largely "undisclosed" and our only reference (same as for wages) are going to be "reported" or selfpub. There are also significant differences in reported values, depending on whether it's the actual full amount up front, versus installments, or loan to buy etc. We're really at a stage that barring the club themselves making an open statement, it's massive conjecture. Koncorde (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. @Elegant vodka: Can you go back to being civil now please? – PeeJay 10:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying that @PeeJay2K3:, there is nothing wrong with using a reliable source if one can be found (i.e. if the BBC says £75m, then the BBC are a trusted authority for news etc and no reason to believe they are incorrect). Koncorde (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the wording of the article, though. The BBC might simply be reporting what other outlets have said, or they might have inside sources, but since they never reveal their sources, it's hard to know what to trust. – PeeJay 12:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be £75m also in the tables if enough sources repeat that. -Koppapa (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say if uses the words "reported" then it's likely just that (in which case there must be a source that was the originator which may be reliable). If the "reporting" source can't be found, and nothing corroborates then it's clearly undisclosed (or if the wording is "undisclosed, but believed to be in the region" for instance). In contrast, the BBC article on Lukaku says "£75m and mentions no reported" but does refer to an unspecified amount of follow-on costs. All I'm saying is that it's fraught with issues, and it's not a particular issue if we use a reliable source for a given transfer value. The only real verification in any case will be when the yearly accounts are submitted (which is where previous mis-truths have been revealed about claimed transfer costs). Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde, nothing could be found in Companies House filing. If it is undisclosed, usually it is really undisclosed. in Italy FIGC required clubs to submit the account with a table of player signing, and their amortization, which usually the club also attached the same table to the filing to C.C.I.A.A. (the two filings can be different). But in England, i think there is no legal/FA requirement on the football club. If truly verifiable, only shareholder of the club with access to internal accounting report can verify (or for international transfer, only people with access to FIFA TMS, or the agent and the player could know the fee). I think it is acceptable to use media estimated/reported figure, just need wording. According to BBC/according to insider source that told BBC? Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's kinda what I was suggesting, Utd's accounts used to be published via Shareholders rights. Koncorde (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So far for 2015–16 financial report and 2016–17 half-yearly financial report, they did not disclose the fees. For those Portuguese/French clubs (those as listed company), they only disclosed some significant signing (i think it is some kind of rule that large sum investment/disinvestment that affect their assets/revenue, they need to disclose it), but not all. I saw only Turkish club disclosed more. Matthew_hk tc 17:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem was the range of the fee for some footballers. For "self-published" source, i am not sure those leaked by Football Leaks were true or not, but unlike those filing in C.C.I.A.A. of Italy, which anyone can buy it and read it, i am not sure we could really able to use those "self-published" source (but Der Spiegel used Football Leaks). May be the wording for the reported fee with a range in different media, just as it is, quoting different media for their own figure; for the latter, what is the wording? as some link of Football Leaks was dead, only media reported the Football Leaks was live, such as Bale. Matthew_hk tc 15:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Matthew, why can't you understand this - you CANNOT use primary sources like that! WP:OR! GiantSnowman 17:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is published source in CCIAA (or in Juve/Lazio/Roma case, it is published in 1info, Borsa Italiana and their website), just quoting fee on specific table on a specific page number is not OR. For football leaks, i am not sure, quoting media using football leaks as source, rather than football leaks itself?

More on Italian football clubs, sometime on top of a table (or tables), such as Roma and Torino, they had a short statement on date, fee, from which clubs the players was signed, i don't see any additional interpretation required. Matthew_hk tc 18:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Belgian international stats

The international stats of Belgian players on here are a total mess. We need a consensus on exactly which matches players did not earn caps.

Basically, there are four matches where it is unclear whether players have earned caps - Croatia in March 2010, Romania in November 2012, Luxembourg in May 2014 and Czech Republic in June 2017.

NFT.com regard the Croatia, Romania and Luxembourg matches to be non-FIFA. However, they do not regard last months match against Czech Republic to be non-FIFA.

The official Belgium Football Association source includes all of these matches in their player stats. This suggests that players were indeed awarded caps for appearing in these four matches.

There is a note in the Belgium national football team article saying that the matches against Romania, Luxembourg and Czech Republic are not official. For some reason, the Croatia match is ignored.

I think to clean this up we need a consensus on EXACTLY which Belgium matches should not be included in a player's stats. Why does NFT.com source disagree about this Czech Republic match? Why is this Croatia match included in every Belgian player's stats on here but the others aren't?

There should be ONE standard note which can be used across player articles to justify why the NFT.com and Belgium Football Association sources do not agree with what is presented in the article. Stuart1234 (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Did Croatian FA listed the match as official? I knew they had a database but became dead link. Not sure just website upgrade or the entire database became something you need to dig in Wayback Machine. Matthew_hk tc 23:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at FIFA.com. They do not list any of the four matches. I have found the site to be fairly consistent in listing official matches and not listing unofficial ones. For example, it does not list the CONCACAF Gold Cup matches against non-FIFA teams. Not sure if that helps any. Equineducklings (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all of Belgium's official international matches can be found here. None of those friendlies are included. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the consensus on here then for including unofficial matches in player's stats? Cristiano Ronaldo's stats in his article include two unofficial matches (unofficial according to NFT.com). How do we know that players don't earn caps for these matches? The official Belgian Football Association website seems to think they do. Personally I believe players did earn caps in these four matches and it would be far cleaner to include them because right now virtually every big Belgian player has stats which match no source. Especially this Croatia game which is included in every player I can bother checking, even when others aren't. The BBC believe Lukaku currently has 60 caps so they think appearances in these matches count http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40520856 Stuart1234 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingsley Coman

The press release in April used excised (past tense) the option to sign Kingsley Coman, he signed (past tense) a contract, but why people alleged the deal only effective at the end of season and use "would excise"? These kind of loan with option/obligation transfer, i saw no real citation about transfer window to make the deal only effective on window opens. Matthew_hk tc 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Gylfi Sigurðsson

How long has the article name been with non-English characters? Older browsers will have problems with the page on some characters and if it's an English article shouldn't we be using English characters in the name? WP:ACCESS anyone? Also why is there IPA? You use that for English don't you, I don't understand why there would be Icelandic. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's how you spell his name. You wouldn't complain about use of accents on letters like ñ, ß or æ, so what's wrong with ð? – PeeJay 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

ð is a letter in old English. Also many Serbian footballer start with letter Đ (i saw the exception was Novak Djokovic, the tennis player). As long as they are their name in Latin and common name (in their native language), it is ok to use those character. Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I thought some of the older browsers, which some people still use could access these characters or not, that was in regards with WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think those characters already in the 8-bit character table. Also, it is quite rare for old browser. File:Browser usage share, 2009–2016, StatCounter.svg Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

k, I will ignore it then! heh, btw whats with the IPA, I've never seen that used on a footballer player article before. Govvy (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wider issue would be a clarification over the use of Patronymic names in articles for Iclandics? I see @Kind Tennis Fan: has changed it from the long-standing tradition, but not sure what current stance from Wiki-project Football is regarding the use of the given name. Koncorde (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Even the same Latin character had different pronunciation, thus IPA was an universal standard to pronounce some word. But personally on IPA was, unsourced/WP:OR Matthew_hk tc 13:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So if IPA has been added and it's unsourced, should it be removed? Govvy (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That's involved a lot of article and need a consensus first. Unlike something that can be look up in a dictionary (or have a standard pinyin for Chinese language), i'm not sure where to find citation on the IPA. Matthew_hk tc 14:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"In use" tag on rapidly updating articles

I'd hoped to do this earlier, and in slightly more depth, but real life has raised its ugly head and I'm pressed for time. And I want to get this discussion started before 7/13, when most of the next round of games for the 2017–18 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round are played and this might come up again.

On 6/29 and 7/6, when lots of games for the 2017–18 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round were being played, User:Qed237 put an {{in use}} tag on the article for about 4 hours, updated the article as games were played, and reverted a large number of similar edits from other editors, including some edits that appear (to my untrained eye) to have been correct, but "violated the in use tag". He says he did this because otherwise the page got a lot of edit conflicts and was unmanageable, and mentions this may have been talked about on someone's talk page, but not here.

I'm not comfortable with this; while I sympathize with trying to keep things productive on a busy page, I don't think editors, expereienced or not, should be able to call "dibs" on a rapidly changing article. We certainly don't seem to do it for other in-the-news type stories. I mentioned this on his talk page (see here), suggesting I might get outside advice, and he suggested WT:FOOTY. Could I get some others to weigh in here? Is this a thing people in football-related articles have been doing consistently that other topics don't? Do you think it's OK? Can you think of anything else that can be done instead? Should he just have to deal with the edit conflicts? We don't usually semi-protect pages due to high traffic, even in really high-edit-rate pages, but this is an attempt to go beyond that and lock out, really, anyone but Qed237 for 4 hours. As you can probably tell, while I'm sympathetic to the goal, it really bothers me, and is (I think) against the underlying open, collaborative philosophy of the site. I know there are a lot of editors of plane crash/terrorist attack/breaking news pages who would like to be able to do this, but (to my knowledge) never have. I'm torn between not pestering a project to let it handle things however it wants to, and asking a broader audience because of the principle of the thing ... so for now, I'm starting here.

To be clear, I'm not looking for sanctions or warnings or anything, just a consensus on what to do in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I will let others discuss this, but I just give my point of view first. Previous seasons, we were a few editors (3 or 4) that discussed before each matchday and "divided" the work between us. The reason we felt we had to do this was a lot of IP's and inexperienced editors caused a lot of errors in the articles while updating their favourite team. They also caused a lot of edit conflicts, which is a really big issue on these matchdays. These big matchdays can quickly get out of hand and chaotic, so that is why I have choosen to do this. It is not my intention to WP:OWN the article, and if the work is divided amongst editors in a way to avoid edit conflicts that is great. When User:SuperJew and User:Nmk829 added goalscorers to the matches it worked great. I am open for a discussion about this to see what is the best way of keeping these article both correct and updated as quickly as possible (it goes a lot quicker when there are no edit conflicts). Qed237 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion here, I don't agree with live score updating updating articles as games are played generally, but don't care enough to fight what I see as a neverending battle. The issue of livescoring updating articles as games are played has come up many times before (one example here) and loose consensus has been live scoring should not be added updating articles as games are played should not be done - to the extent that @Qed237: even created {{Livescores editnotice}} , so a bit surprised to see Qed237 doing such. However, we also have a {{Match in progress}} (which survived a TfD) which defacto suggests the project is updating live scores updating articles as games are played so there is some contradiction in what consensus may actually be. However, between these two templates, and possibly others, I don't see the need for an {{in use}} tag on such articles. Pretty much per para 3 from @Floquenbeam: I sympathise, but I'd be concerned about the slippery slope; how long before this becomes the norm on many articles, and is kept there for longer and longer periods as editors want to make sure they can complete their follow up edits as all the remaining detail is released following matches. Lots of good editors may simply give up and go find something else to do with their time. Personally I'm just going to relax and let other people fight it out on 'rappidly changing articles' and just stop by later and make sure they are right at the end of it. Plenty of other more reliable places to get live scores updated information as games are played from if I am following games. ClubOranje^T 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You may want to read it once again as there was no mentioning of livescores. Kante4 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either, in part because I have been on both sides of these situations on multiple articles, and I know how frustrating it can be for both parties involved. I did feel the need to point out that this discussion is not about live score updating (which Qed237 and the others listed tend not to do), but about the chaos that happens when 10, 20, 30 matches end at the same time. Equineducklings (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Equineducklings for clarifying that. I interpreted the lots of games ... were being played and updated the article as games were played differently. I apologise to QED237 for any suggestion you may or may not have updated games while in play; as I said, I'd be surprised, but did not check that was actually the case or not. ClubOranje^T 05:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I could always leave the article alone on thursday and see what happens. My guess is that it wont be pretty, just like before. At least the article is protected. Qed237 (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think ClubOranje's confusion was all my fault; I'm the one who said "updated the article as games were played" above, I should have said "updated the article as games were finishing". Sorry, CO.

@Qed237: I guess I'd be more comfortable if you didn't use the {{in use}} tag tomorrow, and we see just how much of a difference it makes. Then we'd at least be discussing this with better information. I don't know what you mean by the article being protected, though; it doesn't look like it's ever been protected? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: My bad, it was 2017–18 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round that was protected earlier and these articles are often semi-protected so I just thought it was protected now. Anyway, I will not use the {{in use}} tag tomorrow, but I am not sure I will be able to edit the article then. We just have to wait and see. Qed237 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Liga del Sur (Bahía Blanca)

Can someone please have a look at this page. I don't even know where to begin to sort it out. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

My first impression is that this page should just be deleted. A regional league in Argentina seems like it would have a hard time passing notability standards. However I am not at all familiar with soccer in Argentina, perhaps someone else has more knowledge on how popular football at this level is. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that it passes WP:GNG, although an expert in Argentinian football would be appreciated. I also moved the page to Liga del Sur. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not an Argentine football expert but have edited Argentine articles including the Copa Argentina. The regional leagues are at the 6th tier in Argentina and don't participate in the Copa Argentina which would make the article fail WP:FOOTYN. Here is a list of regional leagues. Five articles here have been created and are all in poor condition and should fail FOOTYN, too. Maybe I missed something, which is always possible. Equineducklings (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am going to PROD the league articles, if there are further comments they can be made there. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(Undue) page move (?)

Was this move correct? Former player is known as Joca! Maybe what we need is check the disambiguation list (two more Portuguese chaps with same nickname), but this was not warranted methinks. A good suggestion would be "Joca (Portuguese footballer, born X/Y/Z)", no?

Inputs please, cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This one may need PROD Jorge Samuel Figueiredo Fernandes and this one João Carlos Almeida Leandro not sure his notability. So Ricardo Jorge da Silva Pinto Pereira should be the primary usage of Joca. Matthew_hk tc 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jorge Samuel Figueiredo Fernandes has played LigaPro, (FPL) meets NFOOTY, and his soccerway profile is listed as Joca. The other two also have their soccerway profiles listed as Joca. João Carlos Almeida Leandro played in Taça da Liga for Firense, so also meets NFOOTY. It is arguable whether any of these, or Osvaldo Jacob Chitumba Palana, an Algerian international who will one day have a page, are 'primary use' of Joca. I think the move is just fine as it is. If you are looking for any of these footballers you can find them, whether you search on their name or for Joca. Nobody ever searches for "Joca (Portuguese footballer, born X/Y/Z)". They have perfectly good names to disambiguate by without making it vague. ClubOranje^T 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is if one is primary or not. If one is being searched for much more than the others, they get the default page.LordAtlas (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Lucas Biglia

The guy is about to sign for A.C. Milan, but no official announcement is expected before at least tomorrow (due to medicals and stuff). Meanwhile IPs can't contain themselves. Would an admin be kind enough to semi-protect the page for a couple of days? Thanks in advance. Luxic (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Luxic Maybe ask at WP:RPP? There's only a couple of football admins, so you'll get a quicker response there (usually). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected. Personally I find the admins at RFPP tend to be very unhelpful as they frequently refuse protection with the claim that it's a "content dispute" even when there is very clearly an issue. Number 57 11:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Inter Milan squad 2010 FIFA Club World Cup

What specific reason to nominate this template to delete? i forgot. Matthew_hk tc 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus that we don't have 'championship winning' squad templates in football. GiantSnowman 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The templates in Category:FIFA Club World Cup winning squad navigational boxes should probably be deleted as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

True. Kante4 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Latvian Higher League

Babite have been excluded from the league for match fixing. The league site found here has completely removed them from their standings. I know removal from the standings and results tables is not how things are normally handled here, but I generally prefer to do what the official league or FA site says. Any thoughts on how these situations should be handled, not just this particular case but any others as well? Equineducklings (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This says to colour their line black, but I've also seen situations where they're removed completely. -Gopherbashi (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume that is the way to do it. I generally hesitate, though, when I see the league or FA site has it displayed differently. Equineducklings (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article without removing Babite from tables. I am open to making other changes including removal of Babite if editors believe it should be done. Equineducklings (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Season urls

Hi, I have started this discussion at Template talk:Soccerbase season re Soccerbase changing their urls. I think it's quite important, so any feedback will be appreciated. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Think I've updated it, assuming the only changes they've made are for 2016 season onwards and there isn't something else that I've missed... Anybody notice anything amiss please report it. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jesús Navas Assists

Could somebody skilled at editing tables, please remove the Assists columns from Jesús Navas#Club. Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FC Steaua București → FCSB

The club, previously known as FC Steaua București (officially "SC Fotbal Club Steaua București SA"), changed its name to FCSB (officially "SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA") at the end of March 2017 (Translated link to the Executive Commitee of the Romanian Football Federation). The club is commonly referred to by important Romanian sport sites such as ProSport, DigiSport and GSP.ro as FCSB, however its fans call the club Steaua.

The problem is that at the UEFA Champions League draw the club was also referred to as FCSB:

"Third qualifying round draw (matches 25 & 26 July/1 & 2 August) League route FCSB (ROU) v Viktoria Plzeň (CZE)"

CSA Steaua București, the sports club that administrated the FCSB football section until 1998 decided to refound its football club this summer and will commence play in the fourth or fifth division.

So, I am asking, shouldn't the page be moved to FCSB rather than keeping it Steaua Bucharest?

See disscussion here. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the club still refers to itself as FC Steaua Bucuresti on its own website (see here. – PeeJay 12:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how they do it. Even the Romanian Football Federation and Romanian Profesional League refer to them as FCSB.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't moved yet, the trial is on going. Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal still lists it as the same club that won all the championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bancuri cu olteni poetici (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bancuri cu Olteni the club is the same that won the UCL in '89, it's not about that. The problem is the name.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming

I sincerely don't know why qualifying phases are named "qualifying" for the European Championships and "qualification" for the World Cups at this encyclopedia (maybe someone will enlighten me there), but be it as it may, shouldn't we respect the approach and leave the correct wikilink?

A situation has been going on for years in the Javier Patiño article, where an editor changes from "qualification" to "qualifier", writing it in caps to top it. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's funny because neither FIFA nor UEFA refers to the process as "qualifying" or "qualification" any more, they simply refer to the whole set of matches as "qualifiers" (see UEFA and FIFA). n.b. FIFA uses the word "preliminaries" in the URL, but "qualifiers" everywhere else. – PeeJay 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why this encyclopedia names the Euro qualification process "qualifying" while naming the World Cup qualifying process "qualification". But all the matches are qualifiers. The process is called qualifying/qualification, a match within that process is a qualifier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent was everywhere, 2017 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification, 2017 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification and 2017 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualification, but for earlier editions qualifying, qualifying round was used. So, is there any MoS / naming convention? Matthew_hk tc 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

styling question

On football players' pages, is it good styling to have the headers for the clubs in "club career" section include the years? For example look at Ivan Franjic. --SuperJew (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

World football transfer record merger discussion

Hi all, please note that there is a discussion to merge World football transfer record with List of most expensive association football transfers. This discussion can be found here here. A similar merger discussion has also been opened for Arsenal F.C. Academy and Arsenal F.C. Reserves - here. Both have been inactive/overlooked for the most part so please share your thoughts. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Matías Fissore to mainspace

Could an admin move Draft:Matías Fissore to Matías Fissore? It was move-protected because someone was bringing across poorly translated articles from the Spanish Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Overkill

After dispatching the nuisance at Eduardo Berizzo and Pablo Calandria, another seasonal squad template...

Question (even though I imagine the reply will be the same, hopefully): is the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup champions squad template in Thiago Motta not overkill?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See above. – PeeJay 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, i missed that one. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Scotland national football team manager

Why is this article titled so? I realise that there's quite a lot of prose there, but surely this is simply an expanded list and should be titled as such? – PeeJay 21:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just realised there's an England one too. While managing one's country comes with a certain measure of prestige, that specific role is surely not worthy of its own encyclopaedia article as distinct from Manager (association football). – PeeJay 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You proposed something similar with the England article several years ago, but the consensus was to keep it as it was (still is). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

At least one positive I can take from that is that my opinion hasn't changed in the last few years. Anyone got anything to add to the discussion? – PeeJay 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, there are 11 "lists" of national team managers (Algeria, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and United Arab Emirates) and only 6 "articles" (England, France, Germany, Scotland, Sweden and Wales). – PeeJay 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are good articles in my view. Certainly more notable than some guy playing a minute in the 3rd level tier in Germany or so. For the naming, I'd say they are more than a list and would keep them there. And could create a redirect though. -Koppapa (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you think I was suggesting they should be deleted? I just think they're wrongly titled. – PeeJay 09:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The England one started out as a "list of" but was quickly moved, with the rationale "No longer a list, more of an article" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Cyprus football templates

Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is also the wider issue of an editor removing links to European competitions from templates like {{1969–70 in English football}} (that one hasn't had its links removed, but the editor has done so from the Cypriot templates and then nominated them for deletion claiming there aren't enough links). As far as I'm aware there has been no discussion on whether these removals are appropriate, so if editors want to contribute to this debate then I think that is something worth mentioning. Number 57 15:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Referencing Squad Numbers in Players Articles

Shouldn't the players squad number be referenced in their article? --Kind regards MJ ^☕ 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE applies - reference on the club squad list. GiantSnowman 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's team's seasons in season templates

Is it okay to link to the season coverage in women's football teams' lists of seasons as this: Turbine Potsdam within overall season templates such as 2016–17 in German football? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sports teams on social media

I was wondering if I am allowed to create a Wikipedia page with information about the most popular sports teams on social media. Here are some examples of sites with the most popular sports teams right now: http://fanpagelist.com/category/sports-teams/ http://www.worldofstadiums.com/sports-clubs-on-social-media/

I think a page with all sports teams with +10 million followers or something like that could be interesting for a lot of sports fans. I couldn't find a Wikipedia page which offers information about this subject yet. It's easy to check the figures, because it's not hard to find the team's figures on their Facebook, Twitter and Weibo pages. User:Houndground

Not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a clickbait listicle. GiantSnowman 11:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, not needed. Kante4 (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social network, try another site. Kind regards MJ ^☕ 12:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(Hopefully)minor tweak

Can someone please have a look at Antonio Rodríguez Dovale's reference #3? I have tried any imaginable way, but i still cannot help prevent the italics from unduly appearing.

Attentively, thanks very much in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it, is that what you were looking for? Kosack (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely! Many thanks, User:Kosack :) --Quite A Character (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Football kit with full-length trousers

I am trying to use Template:Football kit box to produce a historical kit where the team wore full-length trousers rather than shorts. Is this possible? BlueSwede92 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not currently possible. -Koppapa (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)