Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 138

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

→

Archive 145

Order of national youth & senior teams

Hello. I have a question coming from a specific example on the page I created of Zerguinho Deira. Basically, this player made his debut for the Suriname senior team before playing for the Suriname U20 and Suriname U17 teams. My question is, in the infobox, is it appropriate to put the Suriname senior team first because it is the first one he played for, or is it appropriate to put it last, because it is the most senior team the player appeared for?
It would be nice to know what to do on this article, and I hope this can apply to this type of scenario in general. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Put it first. Just like with clubs, the national teams section should be in chronological order..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Traditionally we have ordered it in order of seniority for international apps... GiantSnowman 17:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, the order should be U17, U20, senior, regardless of when the player made his cap. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Nehme1499 say put it last. Paul Vaurie, ChrisTheDude, Struway2 say put it first. What should we do? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree to put it in order of seniority rather than chronologically. I have seen B teams put after the senior team but not youth teams so I imagine that is what we have always done as the snowman says.--EchetusXe 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation says chrono and AFAIK always has. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the template documentation does not always keep up to date with editing patterns - and as far as I remember national teams have always been displayed by seniority. GiantSnowman 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: So, you're saying, editing patterns over the years overrule the template documentation? :-/
Is this something that should be kept in mind in general, by the way? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. GiantSnowman 21:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Linking nationality in the lede

Do we link "less-known" countries in the lede? @Willbb234 argues we should link to the Ivory Coast for Amad Diallo (diff), as "the Ivory Coast is small and relatively unknown so this link would be useful". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You reverted without giving a reasonable justification. Please place the wikilink back in. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not everyone will know that Ivorian means Ivory Coast. Obviously not needed for English/American/French, but for less well known country adjectives it makes sense. Joseph 2302(talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was following the already-established convention of not linking to nationalities in the lede, as is the case for Didier Drogba, Harrison Afful, Fandi Ahmad, and Hassan Maatouk (GAs), and Niels Bohr, Eduard Streltsov, and Fred Keenor (FAs). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK says that major examples of countries shouldn't be linked. At some undefined point, you're supposed to link the country. Hack (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not link it. Kante4 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't link it either. We wouldn't link European nations so I don't see why we should apply a different standard to African nations. Also, it's not a 'small and relatively unknown nation' - it has a population of about 25 million. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Now we determine how well known a country is by looking at its population. Makes sense. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly: the whole thing is nonsense. Therefore, we should stay consistent throughout. What may be "unknown" to you is very well known to others. It's all very arbitrary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Odilon Kossounou, Sinaly Diomandé, Kalpi Ouattara. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare Featured Articles and Good Articles with stubs? I hope not... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As many others state above, OVERLINK applies - which, in short, means no country names should be linked. GiantSnowman 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mm. Are you sure? As Hack wrote "major examples […] shouldn't be linked". So that would indeed leave us with the question what does not count as a "major example". That said I'd be fine with us just not linking any countries. Robby.is.on (talk)

I'd say any country is a major example. Who are we to decide which countries are major and which are minor? GiantSnowman 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's no question that, for example, the United States is more commonly known than Djibouti. I would in fact argue a large percentage of readers wouldn't know of the latter. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GS here that all countries should be considered major. Though I would agree that the US could be considered major and Djibouti minor, there is no real way of defining which countries are major or minor without offending a hell of a lot of people. Also, who am I to say that the US is indeed more significant than Djibouti. To someone from Djibouti, Djibouti would be considered more important. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the argument that you can't draw a line which countries are major and which aren't, but I think the conclusion from this should be that we should link all the countries. --SuperJew (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Except OVERLINK specifically says not to link to countries... GiantSnowman 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OVERLINK doesn't say not to link to countries, it says "[u]nless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked..." (emphasis mine). For example, a fair number of people would probably change "Nigerien" to "Nigerian" thinking it was a misspelling, when the two are demonyms for nationals of Niger and Nigeria, respectively. I would say that in this case, context is quite necessary and OVERLINK would not apply to the first instance in the lead identifying the subject's nationality; all subsequent instances would clearly fall under OVERLINK. Perhaps to solve the issue in its entirety we could write "Subject is/was a football/soccer player from nation" rather than saying "Subject is/was a demonym football/soccer player." — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is clunky wording. GiantSnowman 11:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: WP:OVERLINK says Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked [...] The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian), Yet as you said above how do we differentiate between major and minor? While you may say that all countries are major, I would counter that a majority of average readers of football-related pages probably don't know where are say Vanuatu, eSwatini, or Dominica. So we'd say link in those cases. Since we can't draw a line, we should IMO link all of the countries (and I think, as do you, that OVERLINK is wrong in this case). Also there is the case of Nigerien vs Nigerian as Jkudlick brought above. Another similar case could be Congolese vs. Congolese (for example Dieumerci Mbokani and Amour Loussoukou). Or another example Dominican vs. Dominican (for example Glenson Prince and Jonathan Faña). --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet you said I agree with the argument that you can't draw a line which countries are major and which aren't... GiantSnowman 11:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I did. And that's why I suggest linking all the countries. --SuperJew (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And that's why I said OVERLINK says not to do that. We're going round in circles. It is well established that we countries should not be linked, except in certain circumstances (historical country, for example). GiantSnowman 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the continuation: not to link unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article - if the nationality/country is important enough to include in the lede (which it is because it is very defining in soccer - decides what international team they can play for, visa quotas, there are categories for soccer players based on nationality, etc.) then it should be linked as it is particularly relevant to the context. --SuperJew (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

EFL Trophy notability

Hello. I have a question regarding the notability of the EFL Trophy. Of course, if two clubs from the EFL League One play each other in it, the game is considered fully-pro and a player that appears in it is considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The issue is with U21 sides of EPL/Championship clubs. If, say, Manchester United U21 play against Plymouth Argyle, the match is not considered fully-professional, right? Because I have found instances where players who have played in such games have Wikipedia articles (like Hannibal Mejbri for example.) Should this article be moved to draftspace for now? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A player who only plays for Plymouth Argyle in the EFL Trophy against Manchester United U21 won't pass WP:NFOOTY, as you correctly state. However, you would still need to look at WP:GNG (which takes precedence over NFOOTY). It's possible that Mejbri passes GNG and can therefore stay in the mainspace (I haven't looked into him so idk). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, my understanding is EFL matches give notability as long as they are between fully professional teams - U21 teams, and team below the fifth English tier aren't fully pro - full list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. However, you can still keep a page without senior appearances as long as you pass Wikipedia's general notability criteria at WP:GNG. Mejbri fails NFOOTY, but passes NGNG - in fact there was a deletion nomination here [[1]] where the arguments were laid out and the page was voted to be kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are these pages named correctly?

I came across these two individuals named Ian Cameron. There are several people with that name, so Ian Cameron is a disambiguation page, but there are two who are involved with football (playing and then coaching, but to varying degrees). There is Ian Cameron (footballer) and Ian Cameron (association football coach). Ian Cameron (footballer) had a notable playing career over many years and is now a youth coach. Ian Cameron (association football coach) had a very limited playing career - one year at American fourth tier, before moving onto coaching, where he now coaches a fully professional club in the US. Should the latter be (footballer born 1988) because he did technically have a playing career, or is it fine as is? I think they are okay with their current dimambiguations, but figured I'd ask here anyways RedPatchBoy (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The disambiguations are incomplete. Both people were players and both have coached. I suggest move both to '(footballer, born YEAR)' as is standard, and redirect the old pages to a disambig page. GiantSnowman 09:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

RM discussion started at Talk:Ian Cameron (footballer)#Requested move 5 January 2021 for anyone interested. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this pair are father and son. The older Ian Cameron's page states he has a son named Ian, who played youth at Patrick Thistle FC in 2005 with this as the source (includes image). They're both from Glasgow. The younger Ian Cameron started college soccer in the US in 2007, which lines up with the 2005 source time wise. This is the younger Ian Cameron now (image) same person? RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Figured it out. They are father and son based on this source, which says he has a father named Ian and sister named Kayleigh which matches up with the elder's page which says he has two children named Ian and Kaleigh. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Greek Football Cup honours

We really need a wider opinion on this one. (pinging involved users: @Abudabanas, Kyopa, and BEN917:) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion. Talk:Greek Football Cup#Statistics on performance by club section. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Debut with first team, sent to reserves, loaned out to other B team

Abdoulaye Dabo began his senior career at FC Nantes on 11 August 2018, playing 2 games. He was then sent to their B team, and made his debut on 15 September, playing there until 2021. Today, he was sent on loan (from Nantes) to Juventus, who sent him to their B team. Is the way the article is currently set up correct? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not have the senior Nantes team first? It's both the senior team and the team he played for first. --SuperJew (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Because otherwise it would look like he was loaned from the B team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme - in these situations the B team has to go first, because they are not the party why loaned them out... GiantSnowman 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dabo was not "sent to the reserve team" at Nantes, and the source provided does not say that. It says he played for the reserve team, which is perfectly normal in France, but not in Italy I understand, and does not confer any change on his status overall. Gricehead (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a sligt adjustment to the sentence. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should have Nantes B indented too, like a loan. --SuperJew (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We already had this discussion here. For players who only played for 2 teams (A team and B team), the consensus was to not put any arrow, and to put the team with whom he debutted first above the other. No consensus was reached in the case of loans or transfers to other teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Roach (footballer)

For any expert in early English football, can anyone take a look at this guy to see if he's notable? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, he isn't. He only played at a regional amateur level, so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, and there's no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. There's also a clear WP:COI in the creation of the article, and an insane level of irrelevant detail about his extended family (the fact that his grandson was Kerry Dixon's agent, the names of his great-great-grandchildren, etc), which wouldn't belong in the article even if he was notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Roach (footballer) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also a conflict of interest here between the subject and the creator of the article. This editor has been warned about conflict before but has chosen to delete the warning from his talk page.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Scorelines used in text.

Hello. What is the correct order to write the scoreline of a match? There are five different cases to write down scorelines of a match. A match either ends in a draw, a home win, or an away win (but since we write from the perspective of one team) there is also away loss, and home loss. The question is, what do we write for each?
1. For a draw, there is no issue, it is a draw in both cases and it's simple.
2. A home win is simple, we just say "they scored in a 5–0 win over Example United".
3. Now here is the tricky part. For an away win, do we say "he made his debut in a 2–0 win over Example United" or "he made his debut in a 0–2 win over Example United"? Or "he made his debut in a 2–0 away win over Example United" or "he made his debut in a 0–2 away win over Example United?
4. Same kind of issue for an away loss. Do we say "they scored in a 1–5 loss to Sample City FC", "they scored in a 5–1 loss to Sample City FC", "they scored in a 1–5 away loss to Sample City FC", or "they scored in a 5–1 away loss to Sample City FC"?
5. Lastly, there's the issue of a home loss. Do we say "made his debut in a 2–0 loss to Example FC", "made his debut in a 0–2 loss to Example FC", "made his debut in a 2–0 home loss to Example FC", or "made his debut in a 0–2 home loss to Example FC"?
Please answer 3, 4, and 5 individually. And please ping me. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, a result should always be written with the higher score first i.e. "a 2-1 win" and "a 3-1 defeat". I would never ever say "a 0-2 win", irrespective of whether it occurred at home or away. As for the difference between "a 2-0 loss" and "a 2-0 home/away loss", I think either is perfectly acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, the higher score should be first. Reading they won 0-2 always sounds wrong to me. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this has been the consensus for a while, albeit with correct dashes: "2–1", "3–1". :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie:

1. "he made his debut in a 2–0 away win over Example United"
2. "they scored in a 5–1 away loss to Sample City FC"
3. "made his debut in a 2–0 home loss to Example FC"

Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: @Nehme1499: @Struway2: @Robby.is.on: Do we agree that the inclusion of home/away after the score line is optional (as in, saying a 2–0 loss or a 2–0 home loss is the same?) Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see the negative of adding "home" or "away". Might as well say "2–0 home loss" every time, instead of "2–0 loss" sometimes and "2–0 home loss" other times. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a negative, but it remains optional not mandatory.--EchetusXe 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Depends if it's important for the reader to know whether the match was at home or away: if it matters, include it, if it doesn't matter, don't overload the article with excess detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A question from non-native English speaker: is it even correct to say "made debut in a win/loss"? Shouldn't it be "made debut in a match/game/tie/(1st) leg (which <his team> won")? --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"made his debut in a win/loss" is fine. See for example this article, where the sub-headline says "Thiago Alcantara made his Liverpool debut in a 2-0 win over Chelsea" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Early German footballer

Can someone who is an expert on early German football take a look at these newly-created pages?

1. Paul Imke
2. Harald Krämer
3. Alfred Kraus
4. Ernst Kudrass
5. Ludwig Schmitt (footballer)
6. Bruno Goldammer

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Regarding what? The articles seem alright to me. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If they pass WP:NFOOTY and/or WP:GNG, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues says that the Bundesliga (founded in 1963) is fully-pro. So I don't know if the German championship pre-63 is also considered fully-pro or not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If they played in the Bundesliga (Harald Krämer definitely did) then they are notable. If they pre-date that then they were unlikely to be professional, see Introduction of the Bundesliga. GiantSnowman 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No national league existed for more than half of German football history, there were only amateur or semi-professional regional leagues. Of course there are still notable players from this era, so WP:GNG is the deciding factor. Though I have not checked any historical sources, given the prominence of Eintracht Frankfurt at the time I would say it is likely the players meet GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

I am struggling correcting the appearances/goals table, requesting some help to double check it out please. I think it's been oddly updated at times but some historical edits, but it's driving my head nuts trying to work out what's extra, missing, so can someone please help me. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can have a look at it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you. Very much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Move/Rename a category

How do you move or rename a category? Category:Montreal Impact should be renamed as the team has rebranded to CF Montréal. The subcategories as well. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CfD. If an article was moved some time ago, or via an RM, a speedy category move can be requested. However, it doesn't look like this is the case here, so you'd have to start a proper CfD discussion. Number 57 16:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wanderers 3rd kit

Could someone please make the Western Sydney Wanderers 3rd kit to add to the season and club pages? WDM10 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:GL/I. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:UEFA player is broken

Template:UEFA player doesn't work any more due to external website changes.

For example: Anna Pilipenko: {{UEFA player|id=102815|name=Anna Pilipenko}}: Anna Pilipenko – UEFA competition record (archive) ... Sorry! That page doesn't exist... Please head back to the UEFA.com homepage.

The link is now https://www.uefa.com/womenseuro/teams/players/102815--anna-pilipenko/

I'm not sure how to fix the template to make it use the new link. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: That link is not an adequate replacement. It seems to be only for Women's Euro 2022, which means it won't work for men or for women with a record in previous competitions. For instance, the archived version for Sara Däbritz has her record in the World Cup, Euros and Champions League, while her entry at the new link is empty of games. The good news is that the ID is unchanged, so finding the appropriate link might still be possible. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman

1. Steve Hoffman (American football); citizenship: USA, sport: American football
2. Steven Hoffman (Australian footballer); citizenship: Australia, sport: Australian rules football
3. Steven Hoffman (South African footballer); citizenship: South Africa, sport: association football

Are the three articles located correctly? While the first two sound right, I don't think "South African footballer" is correct (I would put footballer, born 1994). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they are correct based off this name discussion, Talk:Martin_Davis_(Jamaican_footballer) which involved an association football (soccer) player and an Aussie rules football player. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: It should really be South African soccer player per this RfC. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Number 2 should probably be (Australian rules footballer) to avoid any doubt. Hack (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Footballer," "association football player," or "soccer player"?

I wanted to reach out to the larger community with a question I've encountered several times. The page in question at the moment is that of Yunus Musah, an American-born player who has played for England at youth level but most recently played twice for the United States senior national team, but both matches were friendlies. Here's the confusion: He was born in New York, grew up in Italy, and moved to England when he was nine. Before playing for the United States, his footballing nationality was clearly English, even though he was born in the United States. But right now, he is an active player on the United States senior team, but he is not cap-tied. Through a series of edits, a consensus has been established that until he is cap-tied, a nationality would not be listed in the lede. But there is no consensus on which word to use to refer to the sport he plays. Some have edited the page to read "...is a professional footballer," while others have edited it to read "...is a professional association football player" and "...is a professional soccer player." The date format of the article is MDY, for what that's worth. I am simply seeking clarity on consensus from other players' pages, as I have seen an assortment of practices. I admit, though, that the majority of players who have most recently played for the United States but have otherwise ambiguous nationality are listed as "soccer players"—examples are, among others, Cameron Carter-Vickers, Julian Green, Danny Williams (soccer, born 1989), and Gedion Zelalem—which suggests to me that Musah, having been born in the United States and most recently represented the United States, even if not cap-tied, should be referred to using American English and thus as a "soccer player." I am open to any suggestions, however, as I haven't been able to find any kind of consensus on this. I appreciate your collective help. Anwegmann (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the example of Cameron Carter-Vickers, which has been discussed here many times (please search the Archives), and use 'soccer' player. GiantSnowman 08:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @GiantSnowman:. Anwegmann (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, what about Soony Saad? Born in the US to Lebanese parents, represented the US at youth level, then Lebanon at senior. I have put "association football player" as I feel it's a good compromise (while using MDY and US English obviously as his Lebanese nationality doesn't affect the type of English being used); what would be the best solution? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

[imported by Nehme1499 from (dif)] I would say "footballer" works best here, as he represents a nation in which the game is called "football" rather than the other way around—for example, if he was Lebanese-born but represented the United States, "soccer" would be most appropriate. [...] "association football," from what I've seen, is best avoided. Anwegmann (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree for Saad describe him as a 'footballer' - it's what I've done for a long time in similar situations e.g. US-born Puerto Rico internationals. GiantSnowman 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Racism Section on Football Wiki

Hello everyone. I want to make clear that racism is a disgrace, but I want a descent discussion about it if it needs a section on football pages. I live in the Netherlands and there aren't pages there where the post this on Wiki pages from clubs. Because it is about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. At the English page of FC Den Bosch there is a big part about a racism part. In a TALK 'discussion' and in the part you can fill in when you make changes to a page the only thing ONE person says is stuff like: The Dutch and English Wiki are different etc. There is no discussion possible. So that is the reason I want to hear/read it from other people on Wiki, what their opinion is about this. A descent discussion and not one person who decides everything. Greetings from the Netherlands :) DutchPJ (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC+2)

We have a dedicated article, Racism in association football, where is should also be mentioned. GiantSnowman 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, @DutchPJ:, you take issue with the mention of the racist behaviour of Den Bosch fans at the FC Den Bosch article. And you're saying such incidents of racism are not mentioned at club pages on the Dutch Wikipedia and that this is because Wiki pages should be about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. Well, I've got to say if it's true Dutch articles do not cover racist incidents from fans, I'm very surprised. Fans are a major aspect of clubs and fan behaviour very much affects how clubs are perceived so their behaviour is absolutely relevant to the article – provided it is covered by reliable sources per WP:DUE.

Pinging @Microwave Anarchist: as they reverted DutchPJ at the FC Den Bosch article. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say it's perfectly appropriate to mention racist incidents on club pages if they were genuinely significant/notable (as the Den Bosch one seems to have been), but they should receive an appropriate amount of weight. The section in the Den Bosch article seems a bit large considering the overall length of the history section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I reinstated the section as it received significant coverage though I do agree with ChrisTheDude that WP:WEIGHT should be considered. Perhaps if anyone is up for a challenge, the history section could be expanded and the racism incident trimmed a little. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a look and read through the history part of the article. I don't think it needs thinning down, all I see is that there is a lot of room for improvement in the history section. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I agree. It's probably because I wrote it myself in about 30 minutes. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

Any admin want to sort out the edit-war here?? Govvy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both the users edit warring are new users (< 10 contributions), so page protection should work. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a COI with the editor removing the content as he refers to Keane as a 'client'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both seem in the wrong. The information being added is being done in a non-encyclopaedic manner and the phrasing isn't supported by the sources, e.g. "refused to vacate", "while doing zero work", "the usually publicity brash", "renewed outrage among loyal" fans, etc. Removing information from an article about a client is also a violation of the rules, but the onus is on the person adding the information. Something neutral along the line that Keane has remained on the payroll after being relieved of the assistant manager role might be appropriate, but this is standard when people have contracts and hardly deserving the inflammatory description. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both editors warned for 3RR. If they pop up again let me know. I'll also semi-protect the article - no commentary on what the article should look like. GiantSnowman 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada men's national football team

We should rename this article: Canada men's national football team. The title is ambiguous because the mentioned article is about American football.
(By the way, aren't you considering to add the word "men's" into association football article names, too?)
Maiō T. (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is correct as is. In Canada, the sport goes by soccer. In Canada, the word "football" is primarily associated with gridiron football, which includes both Canadian football and American football. Also, "men's" is in the title, because in Canada the men's and women's national teams have equal prominence in Canada, compared to around the world, where the male team would have prominence in discussion. The same applies to the United States men's national soccer team. The hatnote is correct in my view. A case could be made that your proposed title could be a disambiguation page (like the US equivalent), since the 'national football team' isn't really a regular team, but the page should most definitely be officially named as 'soccer' not football. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree and have moved that article to Canada men's national American football team. My rationale is in the article's edit history. – PeeJay 20:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My move was immediately reverted by User:Cuchullain. According to assertions in the RM on the article talk page, this Canadian team is unusual as they compete in competitions for both American and Canadian football. I therefore suggest it should be moved to Canada men's national gridiron football team. It would still be an outlier in the categories for men's national American football teams, but at least it would more accurately describe the type(s) of football played by that team. – PeeJay 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

They play the only types of football which are called football in Canada. The title is correct. And anyway this is the wrong football WikiProject to be discussing it on. Smartyllama (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The page should absolutely NOT be moved from its current titlesoccer team to football team. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be known by their WP:COMMONNAME. I am Canadian and the national team is referred to as the national soccer team 100% of the time. I have heard it referred to as the football team ZERO TIMES, it's always 100% referred to as soccer. As a fan of our sport, I do use both the words 'football' and 'soccer', but will use them specifically based on the context. In the context of the national team of Canada, I always use 'soccer' because that's what it is called and known by. The Canadian national team is run by the Canadian Soccer Association. No offense, but if you are not Canadian, you will be biased by how it is termed in your native country. This discussion shows that because of the wanting to change the other page to "American football". Canadian football and American football are two different sports, just like how rugby union and rugby league are different and fans of those sports do not like when others mix them up or just say they are basically the same. Just because the sport is known as 'football' in Europe does not mean the Canadian team will be called 'football team', it should 100% remain as 'soccer team' according to WP:ENGVAR. Wanting to change it is just an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore, trying to move the other page to 'gridiron' is not being more correct. Again, per WP:COMMONNAME, it is rarely called 'gridiron football' in Canada, they'll refer to the one being playes. Again to refer to the rugby league and rugby union example, saying their both just 'rugby' would not be accepted by those in the know. Sorry, if my tone comes across in poor taste, but being Canadian, I feel it is important to accurately explain what the case is and why the current names are correct. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about moving Canada men's national soccer team to another title, but I don't think you're right about Canada men's national football team being the best title for that subject. They play multiple codes of football, that's true, but avoiding the term "gridiron" just because no one actually calls either sport "gridiron football" in Canada is a little spurious to me. Just calling the article Canada men's national football team isn't specific enough to help identify the actual sport(s) played by that team. User:Smartyllama is right that this may not be the right location for this discussion, but the current title is wrong nonetheless. – PeeJay 11:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. The discussion continues here. Maiō T. (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

James Smith, Fulham F.C.

Hi. The page List of Fulham F.C. players lists a James Smith who played for that team from 1909-1915. Unfortunately it links to the disambiguation page James Smith and I can not figure out if this person has a Wikipedia page and if yes, which one it is. Can someone help me identify this player? Lennart97 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'James Smith' listed at Category:Fulham F.C. players who matches, so I don't think so. GiantSnowman 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed - the player in question does not have an article at present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot! Lennart97 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Fulham's James Smiths - there is James Smith (Scottish footballer) and Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896), both of whose infoboxes say he scored 1 goal in 5 League games in 1922. Are we sure that a) they are definitely different players and if so that b) they definitely both played for Fulham and haven't been confused somewhere? Helluva coincidence if players with the same name had the same apps at the same time... GiantSnowman 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

My edition of Joyce lists a player whose career matches James Smith (Scottish footballer) (also played for Rutherglen, Third Lanark, Plymouth, etc). He does not list any other player called James/Jimmy Smith as having played for Fulham in the 1920s and the one he does list is not said to have played for Rangers or Aberdeen. Neither of the sources in the Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896) article back up the claim that he played for Fulham. Pinging @Crowsus:, who created that article, to see if any light can be shed on where the Fulham info came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have removed the references to Fulham from the 1896 born player on that basis. GiantSnowman 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, my source for Fulham was the AFC Heritage ref, which has since removed all their player history trajectories for "temporary data cleanse" - annoyingly they have done this for every player rather than reviewing it on an individual basis. Luckily in this instance there is a pre-cleanse version here that states he was at Fulham in December 1922. John Litster's 'Pre War Scottish Players' files back this up and give a specific loan date of 26/12/22. However he is known to have played for Aberdeen on 22nd and 30th so if correct must literally have been for a day. I suppose there's a possibility he was down in London at Christmas and all parties agreed he could play for Fulham on a guest basis. Maybe there's something to support that and it could be looked into. But it might just all be a mistake based on the very common name and similar position. Litster's files also state that the Third Lanark/Clyde James Smith played for Port Vale then Fulham that season (no further details, it rarely does for English teams) and it does seem more logical that he's the player with the 5/1 stats. Apologies for adding that to the wrong article but I'm sure you can understand why I did so based on the info available (though I should have looked more closely at the Aberdeen appearances for the time since it doesn't add up). PS just to confirm, those files don't shed any light on the original 1909-1915 subject of the query. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Five tildes

What to do about persistent pest editors (such as @Beeney xx:) who refuse to use five tildes when updating infoboxes, causing confusion about stats? GiantSnowman 21:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

😛 Beeney xx (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusion. hahahahahaha. Soooooooo confusion because I haven't added 17:39 or 23:09 for example! If that annoys you can't imagine how you'd react to a fork scrapping a clean swept plate! Beeney xx (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is the date always updated? If yes, i don't think it is a problem not using the five tildes, atleast for me. Kante4 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing the time and simply updating the date, which is the case being highlighted here, is ambiguous. An editor could have updated the stats prior to the player's next appearance on the same day. Other editors may assume that the stats have already been updated, meaning they may become inaccurate thereafter, as not everyone consults with sources before updating stats and relies on the previous editor updating the stats correctly. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If the timestamp is from the day the last match was played we need the time for the timestamp to be unambiguous. So for example, if Jamie Vardy's caps were to be updated today for the match he played today, we'd need the time, too. If someone updates the caps tomorrow and uses tomorrow's date, we don't need the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the assumption is that if there is only a date and the player's team had a match on that date, then the update is following the match. The timestamp might make it technically not ambiguous, but in that case requires the user to either know what time the game was at (and then add 90 minutes + break time to get the end time of the game), which requires a search anyway and doesn't really help with quick info. --SuperJew (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So many pages I update only have the date without time. In fact, I regularly just add the date without a time. I've always assumed the date to be up to and including that date. In fact, I didn't even know five tildes auto entered the date and time. Personally, I find the time makes it look messy, I actually prefer only seeing the date, even though I know technically including the time is more accurate. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, the presence of the time makes it unambiguous. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular example here? The most recent edit I saw by this user was updating Jürgen Locadia, which was inappropriate for a different reason (changing the club-update to today's date (16 January 2021) rather than the last played date (9 November 2020)). Is including the time more common on actively viewed players? I mainly edit American leagues so I don't see this problem very often. Jay eyem (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on Robert Sánchez, which I have been correcting and warning them about for a long time. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at that edit history, I don't see anything wrong with Beeney's edit. The vast majority of the player pages I edit only have dates and no times. I always assume the date to be up to and including games played on that date. It's not like he was updating appearances and leaving an old date - that would be incorrect. I see nothing wrong with just leaving the date. Sometimes I will backdate to the date of their last appearance, as Jay eyem said, with the edit happening days later. I obviously wouldn't put a time if I did that, since I'm not going to look up the exact time a match ended. Re: the Jurgen Locadia edit, I just fixed it. It's understandable why he changed it to 18(@) from 17(1), since that's what soccerway says, since soccerway includes the non-league cup match 1(1) in the league section. I fixed the table in the article RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation at Template:Infobox football biography for club_update states (my emphasis) A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired. and therefore I think we should make every effort to educate users to do this. Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Also, this response from the editor in question shows they know about but are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules. Pure troll behaviour. GiantSnowman 10:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm reading in the comment GiantSnowman. The editor clearly does not understand the goal that is clearly described in the template's documentation. At least the editor is not updating the timestamp even when the player was on the roster but did not participate in the given match! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, will try to keep that in mind for the future. Jay eyem (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyopa edit warring at Greek Football Cup

A follow on from my previous request. In spite of assistance from Crowsus, Kyopa is continuing to edit war at the page. I am on 3RR and fed up. Help needed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Evening. I must say that I don't intend to create any problems. I am trying to solve an unprecedented problem. Two teams that played a final were penalized and neither won the cup. What are we doing? We delete the event, the spectators who saw the final and we say it did not happen? No. From the moment the federation punished the teams, then both are lost (runner's up). Users Crowsus, REDMAN 2019 and two puppets are against me. But my evidence and common sense support my view. I did not ask for anyone's opinion because I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one. Thanks.--Kyopa (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF does not assign the "runner-up" status to either team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All of you need to stop edit warring and take this to the article talk page before you get blocked. GiantSnowman 21:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already at the talk page in some detail. Kyopa is the only one pushing for two runners-up. As Nehme has observed, the RSSSF ref doesn't assign runners-up for the year in question. Neither club claims it (or meantions any non-winning finals) on their website. So logically it should be left out of their total with a note explaining what happened, which is the edit I made. I was at 3RR by Friday so haven't touched the articles since then. And I'm sick of the conflict. This guy will not change (see "I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one", the opposite of consensus) and is far beyond 3 reverts from the different editors who have a differing view. Hence REDMAN's request for more input/intervention. Crowsus (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

...and Kyopa took your advice to heart (edits again on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals). You know...GiantSnowman, you go and talk to him. I 'd really like to see that. It is quite possible to block yourself and sign out of Wiki after a while. Abudabanas (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked @Kyopa: from editing Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals for 48 hours, and told them to use this time to discuss the topic here, to reach consensus. If, after the 48 hours, they continue to edit disruptively, they will be blocked entirely. I suggest that @REDMAN 2019, Crowsus, and Abudabanas: you assist them by clearly explaining why the article should remain as you wish. GiantSnowman 08:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The two clubs have never claimed the runners-up honour, and, as far as I can tell, no one has ever attributed them with it either. Therefore unless anyone can find clear evidence that the clubs were awarded said honour I say that it shouldn't be on the page or the list. Just to make it clear, I am not supporting any deletion of the article about the final. No one can argue that the players and the fans never watched and or played part of the match. My point is that it was never finished, meaning that neither of the two teams won and neither was the runner-up. That is my reason and it is supported my multiple reliable websites and sources, such as the RSSSF one cited by Nehme above. I just hope that Kyopa will understand and agree with my and others opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

REDMAN 2019, Do not hope in me. You managed to punish me while you were cooperating with each other. The fact is clear. Two teams tried to win the cup. They did not succeed. What does this mean? That they failed (Runners up). It was not abandoned. The groups were punished. Like when they are zeroed in a match and their points are deducted. Anyone who can not understand this has a problem. I have none.--Kyopa (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you are saying that Crowsus and Nehme have a problem? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I know where you are going. I am a much older user than all of you. I do not tolerate cleverness and that is why I left the first time. I will probably do the same again.--Kyopa (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

deja-vu? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nehme₁₄₉₉. I'm not old. I am a more experienced user who is tired of listening smartly. If I get the chance and they don't punish me again, we will dance one...dernière danse.--Kyopa (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations. But I am getting to the point were I do not care if you leave or go, as long as this is sorted out correctly. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you care about the article. So sure I'm not worried.--Kyopa (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyopa, I am tired of this. I am going to let others give you their opinion on this, and when they have finished telling you exactly what I have, please stop or I will take this to ANI. Or just ask the GiantSnowman here to block you which I am sure he'd be happy to do. That's the last from me for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article, from in.gr (date 26 June 2020, Nikos Velonakis) ,[2] a website owned by Olympiacos president Evangelos Marinakis. Third paragraph translation: The Red-Whites (Olympiacos) have 27 wins on 39 final attempts with a 69.2% winning percentage (note that the 1962 final against Panathinaikos that was abandoned and not replayed is not included). This article was also re-posted on tanea.gr [3] and tovima.gr [4] (webites of newspapers ΤΑ ΝΕΑ and ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ, also owned by Olympiacos president Marinakis). Added this on Talk page too. Abudabanas (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, can you protect the Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals from Kyopa? We have a new story there. This is endless. It's never going to end. Never ever. Never. Abudabanas (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you raise his conduct at WP:ANI and seek an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 21:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, I feel we're getting somewhere but the new column of compromise also needs a couple of adjustments which are potentially debatable. Crowsus (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Crowsus, I suggested a Final Apps column months ago, but with Kyopa you can never reach an agreement. Check the Talk page. Abudabanas (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no views on the content - just the editing patterns. Making any changes, especially straight after a block, was foolish, particularly given the opposition previously raised here - and then edit warring to restore those changes is indefensible. GiantSnowman 22:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can not make any discussion when an administrator threatens to block me because I have a different opinion. I think I tried to compromise but Abudabanas works as if he owns the article. You all support him and I am alone. So what should I discuss? I think the problem is this: Wrong terms are used. The one who wins the cup is called the winner and the one who loses is the finalist. When two teams qualify for the final, they are automatically considered finalists, regardless of whether the final is interrupted, postponed or canceled. In our case we have 2 finalists and no winner. The term runners-up can only be used in national leagues.--Kyopa (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are or Is (first sentence - North American teams)

When starting an article, what type of verb should be used. User:Walter Görlitz and I disagree about this on Club de Foot Montréal. I believe it should be a case by case basis based on the situation. In this situation, I believe it should be CF Montreal IS a football club. whereas the other editor says that it should be CF Montreal ARE a football club. The latter sounds like incorrect grammar to me. If it was something like The New York Red Bulls then it would be Are, not when there is no The. There was a similar discussion previously here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_136#The_or_no_The about this, while Walter says this Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English argues for consensus to use "ARE", but I fail to see where a consensus was achieved there. Very few of the other MLS articles use ARE, the majority use IS. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PLURALS and Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English are clear. If you want to change consensus, be my guest and grammar, it's not on my head. I too prefer "is" but @KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: have a different opinion. They also pointed to all NFL, NBA and NHL club articles as examples. It was my opinion that "are" is "international" (as can be seen at U2) while "is" is American. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've read that discussion and it seems to me that the discussion relates directly to the other discussion I linked. In terms, of Portland, since their name is Portland Timbers, it would be written as THE Portland Timbers are because of the use of the "THE". When the "THE" is not used it would revert to IS. There were only 3 of you involved, so that's not really a Wide consensus. Reading that, it seems like oknazevad agrees with my view here, given his view of Sporting KC which is the same style as CF Montreal. Furthermore, MOS:PLURAL says " In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames, plural verbs are commonly used to match e.g. the Heat are playing the Lakers". Hence Is should be used in this case for Montreal. CF Montreal is not referring to them by a 'nickname' since there is not 'nickname. The Portland timbers refers to them by the 'nickname' Timbers, hence the are. When it was the Impact that was a 'nickname' hence why it was are prior to the rename. This is all also part of the "The or no The" discussion I linked. NHL, NFL, MLB teams all use a nickname which is why they use Are. MLS teams only some use a nickname. With regards to NFL, there is an exception with the Washington Football Team. They do not have a nickname and the page thus uses is. as does Edmonton Football Team of the CFL. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

One exception in the leagues I mentioned, and only in NFL? And that's because of a local consensus that @Red Jay: explained here. So because of one team, all MLS (and apparently CPL) sides should follow that grammatical exception? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, all other NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA teams use a team nickname form. Not all MLS teams do. Teams like San Jose Earthquakes, Portland Timbers, Colorado Rapids, New York Red Bulls use nickname forms like all those teams (these teams would use plural form like those teams). The others like FC Dallas, Toronto FC, NYC FC use a singular form. Washington Football Team is an exception from the other NFL teams because they are the only NFL team to NOT use a nickname form. They are in line with the majority of MLS clubs in using singular city-based name form in their name. That is what I meant by exception. MLS wouldn't be following Washington, MLS teams that do not have a nickname based form would be following MOS:PLURAL. The Washington FT link you show refers to American_and_British_English_grammatical_differences#Subject-verb_agreement which contains a similar element as MOS: PLURAL which refers to team nicknames. Every American team they refer to is one that uses a nickname. the link from the WFT refers to this page that refers to the NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Utah Jazz, Green Bay Packers, all teams that use a nickname-form. MLS teams are not in this form and were probably overlooked in that because MLS at that point (and still is) not oone of the primary North American leagues. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

All MLS franchise articles did as of end of May 2020, but they have changed over time. As of now they do again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(discussion imported from:Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)

I think "is" is the correct verb in most cases. MOS:PLURALS only applies to team nicknames (e.g. "the Heat", "the Lakers"). Since "Toronto Football Club" is not a nickname, it should be treated as a singular and the opening sentence should read: Toronto Football Club is a … BLAIXX 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: and most other professional team articles disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You are greatly mistaken. Other than the 25+ you changed today, most professional team articles do agree. BLAIXX 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MLS and CPL are not the only professional team articles for North American sports. NFL, NBA and NHL all (save one exception) use "are". I, however, agree that it should probably be "is" in American English, but that is not the consensus that was reached above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

NFL, NBA, and NHL team names generally end with "nicknames" (e.g. New York Jets), that's why they are pluralized. My interpretation of the discussion above is that only teams with names like Portland Timbers should definitely be pluralized. For teams with names ending in "Football Club" there was basically no discussion and certainly not a consensus. BLAIXX 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They are the common team names. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Jets is a nickname or why nicknames should be treated differently from legal names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

By "nickname" I am referring to the part of a team's official name that is not the city or a description. The MOS gives Lakers and Heat as examples despite being part of the official name. The reason why you treat nicknames differently is "a quirk of the language." Oknazvad elaborated more in their last two comments from May. BLAIXX 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(end of imported discussion)

The use of plural verbs for sports teams with a plural nickname is a quirk of North American English that is an exception to the general use of singular verbs for a collective noun. It comes from dealing with the awkwardness of having a sentence constructed like "The New York Giants is…", which just plain grates to any ear. It's not the use of the definite article that makes the difference, it's the plural nickname. When only the nickname is used as a short form, the plural is also used. When only city/state is used as a short form, singular is used, like any collective noun (New York is). Same with the wording "the team is". (The pattern is true for both US and Canadian usage, as the use of nicknames for sports teams is typically the same. "The Montreal Alouettes play in the CFL." But "Montreal plays in Percival Molson Stadium.")

This is in contrast to British usage which treats collective names as plural at all times, so they'd say "New York are". That is incorrect in North American English, though, and tips off that the wrong ENGVAR is being followed. This is accounted for in MOS:PLURALS already.

The question is what happens when the team's formal name doesn't include a nickname, like New York City FC, or Toronto FC. They should be singular. There is no nickname triggering the use of a plural verb. It's not like "Montreal Alouettes", but like using just "Montreal" on its own. If I were writing about Toronto FC, I'd write "Toronto FC is…" just as I would write "Toronto is…" when referring to the club. If I were to use their nickname (the Reds), I would write "The Reds are…" just as I would for other plural nicknames. The only difference Eid that the plural nickname isn't part of the formal name of the club, so it doesn't modify the use of the verb tense for the full name. So, in conclusion, the current lead of the CF Montreal article is incorrect, as it's using a plural verb for a collective noun that is itself not plural in form, which is incorrect in Canadian English. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In most cases, "FC" is a nickname in the North American context as it does not mean football club as it does in international English. That is an interesting point however. So "Toronto FC is ..." but "Seattle Sounders FC are ...", but I can accept that odd inconsistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(imported from Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)

based on your discussion there, I accept the "nickname" guideline which would mean any team with only a place name and either "FC", "SC" or similar would use "is" while those with nicknames would use "are".

If I understand correctly, the following would use "are"

* Atlanta United FC

* Austin FC

* Chicago Fire FC

* Colorado Rapids

* Columbus Crew SC

* D.C. United

* Houston Dynamo FC

* Inter Miami CF

* LA Galaxy

* Minnesota United FC

* New England Revolution

* New York Red Bulls

* Philadelphia Union

* Portland Timbers

* Real Salt Lake

* Sacramento Republic FC

* San Jose Earthquakes

* Seattle Sounders FC

* Sporting Kansas City

* Vancouver Whitecaps FC

The following would use "is"

* CF Montréal

* Charlotte FC

* FC Cincinnati

* FC Dallas

* Los Angeles FC

* Nashville SC

* New York City FC

* Orlando City SC

* St. Louis City SC

* Toronto FC

I can make those changes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(end of import)

I would say that any team that solely uses an FC/SC/City/United/etc would definitely be part of the IS category, regardless of whether it stands for Football Club or for decoration. So I would add Atlanta United FC, Austin FC, DC United, Real Salt Lake, Sporting KC, Minnesota United FC, Inter Miami CF. Teams that use solely a nickname at the end would definitely be in the ARE group (Colorado Rapids, Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, New York Red Bulls) and would require a THE in front of the name. (Philadelphia Union, LA Galaxy, and NE Revolution could go either in either group depending on how its used, but I feel a THE+ARE combo is more appropriate, but if the THE is not used, it would have to be paired with IS) Teams in the Nickname FC form (Columbus Crew SC, Chicago Fire FC, Houston Dynamo FC, Sacramento Republic FC, Seattle Sounders FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC) are more ambiguous. I feel for that third group, the FC would change them to belonging in the IS group, but would be in favour of more specific discussion on those specific forms. For the first two groups, I personally feel there is solid consensus from all contributors. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that when a team name is used in a form of that ends in CF/FC/SC/City/[place], regardless of what precedes it, it should be treated as a singular. "United" is a bit more ambiguous for me but I'm fine with singular. BLAIXX 15:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved all the discussion here, so that if this issue comes up in the future it can all be combined into one area, and I feel referencing the FOOTY project is more appropriate than referencing a Timbers page RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote (for North American clubs)

Establishing a vote option for the following: Pinging @Oknazevad:, @Blaixx:, @Walter Görlitz: and anyone else interested

Teams with ONLY a CF/FC/SC/City/United/etc before or after City name (ex. Toronto FC, CF Montreal, Real Salt Lake, DC United etc)

• Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Use is (ex. "Toronto Football Club is a professional...") BLAIXX

Teams with a Plural Nickname (ex. New York Red Bulls, Colorado Rapids, etc)

• Use THE + ARE RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Use The + are (ex. "The Colorado Rapids are a..." – this one is the most obvious to me) BLAIXX

Teams with a Non-Plural Nickname (LA Galaxy/Philadelphia Union/NE Revolution/Montreal Impact)

• No preference RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Use The + are by default unless there's local consensus on that page to do it the other way. BLAIXX

Teams with a Nickname followed by an FC (ie. Seattle Sounders FC)

• Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad example. "Sounder" is singular while "Sounders" is plural. "Chicago Fire FC" would be a better example, if their common name were that, but it is still "Chicago Fire". I agree with the principle, but don't think there are any MLS sides that meet this criteria. Perhaps something in USL or CPL may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad example, this situation is whether the FC changes it. The plural or singular nickname is irrelevant as it is about the FC, in my view. I'm applying this case to all of Sounders FC/Fire FC/Dynamo FC/Republic FC RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Still undecided. BLAIXX 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• Just to be clear, is this vote is only for US/Canadian articles? And if so please make that clearer. Because in British English, it should always be "are". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

DoneRedPatchBoy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• At the risk of both going off topic and opening a can of worms, I would suggest that there is some ambiguity in British English too, but it depends on the context and whether one is talking about the club or the team. Personally I would say "Gillingham are winning 1-0 against Liverpool" but I would also say "Gillingham Football Club was founded in 1893", not "were"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As an added point, this discussion is specifically about the first sentence of every article, not the remainder of the article. (Team Name IS/ARE a professional football team). I notice the majority of the English Premier League teams currently use IS in the first sentence RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Tottenham Hotspur FC is a football club ...", "Tottenham Hotspur are a football team ...", "Spurs are ...", etc. (e.g. see here) —  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Concept for a New Template

I have an idea for a new template. The template would be for past team squads (like UEFA Champions League or top division winning teams). I want to know everyone's opinion on the concept

A prototype/early version can be found here on the Simple English Wikipedia, although that is using only the things we currently have there. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@ShadowBallX: This has been discussed a number of times, for example here, as well as TFDs here and here. The consensus is to not have championship winning club squad navboxes, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Julio - simply not viable. GiantSnowman 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have {{Italy squad 2006 FIFA World Cup}} or {{Qatar squad 2019 AFC Asian Cup}} for major international competitions. I don't see why we can't do the same for winners of major club continental competitions (UEFA CL, AFC CL, etc.), given that we also have Category:UEFA Champions League winning players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

International tournaments are usually only every 4 years - and a player, if they are lucky, will play in 2 in a 4 year period (Euros and WC, for example). How many international players have won multiple honours? Very few. However, how many players have won significant numbers of domestic/continental trophies? It would soon get ridiculous. GiantSnowman 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Imagine having players like Messi, Ronaldo, Giggs, Maxwell, Dani Alves having all those templates... Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) If such templates were created for "top division winning teams", can you imagine what the bottom of Ryan Giggs's article would look like.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously this would only be sustainable for continental competitions, not domestic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with ones for things like the Champions League, Europa League, and maybe the FIFA Club World Cup. But ones for first division titles would just be overkill. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Competition notability

Hello, I am looking to make an article about the Championnat National U19. The thing is, I don't know what the notability criteria is for a league/competition, and I can't seem to find it on WP:NSPORTS. Can someone help me? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it would be fine, as we have Category:Youth football leagues in Europe, some of which have existed for some time. The English league doesn't have its own overview article but there are several for individual seasons, the most recent being 2016–17 Professional U18 Development League. And unexpectedly, several seasons also for Moldova, most recently 2019–20 Moldovan Under-19 Division, also with no overview article. Crowsus (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

article split

I proposed an article for splitting a few months ago but have only received two responses. Any chance of a couple of you chipping in with your thoughts so I can close the discussion? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References in stats table

Hi. WP:FOOTY/Players currently states that career stats tables should use a single ref next to the updated template, but there are multiple other ways of referencing it, such as with Harry Kane, where seasons are referenced indivually in the seasons column, and Lars Bender, where they are referenced in a seperate column at the end. Personally, I don't have a problem with the first one but feel the second one looks quite clunky, and would rather it were avoided. I would like to know how other editors feel about these formats, and whether the MOS should be updated to reflect this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the two brought here, both seem to me a fine way to reference per season - in both it is clear the reference is for the entire row (season). I do think it is better to have per season references, since having a single reference for the whole table isn't always possible. In the examples above it is quite feasible to find a single reference with all the info (for example each player's page on Soccerway), but for other players (especially journeymen) it might be hard to reference with a single reference - for example seasons in lower leagues/less known countries won't be on a site such as Soccerway and would require multiple references. --SuperJew (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SJ that a line-by-line, season-by-season referencing system is preferable - that is, after all, why we have {{soccerbase season}}. GiantSnowman 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And me. As does WP:FOOTY/Players. It says in the notes that "ideally, each row should be individually sourced. If this is not done, reference(s) for the entire table should appear within this section". If one source above the table clearly sources the entire table, then it's acceptable, but it's a slippery slope: there are very many stats tables with a row of contradictory databases above the table and the reader has no idea which apply to which row. As to formatting, I prefer the Kane method, probably because it's what I'm used to, but don't have a problem with the Bender one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

{{soccerbase season}} is fine as far as it goes, but for the many player articles outside the UK and the top leagues which soccerbase doesn't cover, it's not an option, and alternative databases such as Soccerway and FootballDatabase.eu don't present a separate page per season. In those cases, referencing per line would just be repeating the same reference over and over and over again. I think we need to retain the single reference option, even if we state it's not the preference where soccerbase exists. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gricehead: How would you reference a case then for a player who has seasons 1-3 which appear on the soccerway, and season 4 which appears only in that specific domestic league website, and season 5-6 which appear only in a different specific domestic league website? --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I usually start from Soccerway, and if I need to augment for any stats which Soccerway doesn't have, I would add an inline reference for that row of the table. Gricehead (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To me sounds confusing to have both inline reference and overall reference. --SuperJew (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

tbh, 99/100 career stats tables I update are entirely sourced to Soccerway. The occurrence rate of another inline source is about the same as the occurrence rate for a footnote explaining caps in the "other" column. I don't see any point in repeating the same Soccerway reference for each row of the table, and that's the point I was making. Gricehead (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't have to repeat. Can also use rowspan. --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: fair point - I am terrible with lists. Perhaps the table in the MOS should be changed such that it refences seasons indivdually if that is preferred. And I would agree that it seems odd to repeat the same reference for each row of the table, as is the case with Bender. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: At first glance I also thought Bender has repeated references, but when I looked closer, it's actually different links. The problem is the titles were all formatted the same. --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: the links are different but kicker.de has changed, so they all redirect to the same page now. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Ah I see that now (for some of the links). It's a case though to update it via using an archive or updating the link. I'll deal with it now. And done. --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Typically what I do is place one reference by the update date that covers most (ie. Soccerway) and then if there's other seasons not referenced on soccerway because the league was less notable, I do an in-line citation next to the Team (if the link shows all seasons for that team) or Season (if link shows one season) - I won't mix the two though. Any season without a ref is covered by the one next to the update date. Here's a couple examples of what I mean Example A (team) and Example B (year). I just find too many refs in the table to be not appealing and I also don't like seeing 5 or 6 references next to the Update date. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Supercoppa Italiana name change

I also posited this question on the talk page of this specific article, but not sure how much traffic that page has so wanted to bring up here as well. The official Supercup logo on TV screens and the badge that the players have on their kits, for the past couple of editions, has read as the season rather than a calendar year, i.e. "2019/2020" and "2020/2021". You can see the logo here for the match played today: https://www.mondocalcionews.it/coppe/supercoppa-italiana-2020-21-ecco-quanto-vale-il-trofeo-questanno/Mattia-Di-Battista/. Should we change the title of these articles to reflect that, i.e. 2020–21 Supercoppa Italiana instead of 2020 Supercoppa Italiana for this specific article? Similar to how the Supercopa de Espana has also changed to be played in January of the following year and is now formatted on Wiki as 2019–20 and 2020–21 instead of just simply 2019 or 2020. Thanks all. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support both moves. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have created move requests at Talk:2020 Supercoppa Italiana#Requested move 21 January 2021. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench Reserve team order

Hello. I know we established consensus that whatever team a player plays for first is the one listed first in the infobox (B team vs A team.) What I don't remember establishing consensus for was what was listed first when a player appears on the bench first. For example, Tim Template signs for Sample FC - he makes one bench appearance for the A team on 2 September, and then plays in a B team game on 9 September. What would be listed first? Sample FC A or Sample FC B? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench appearances are, largely, meaningless. GiantSnowman 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Oh. I thought they had value because they represent when a player was playing for a team but wasn't on the field. When a player makes 0 appearances for a club (example Andy Lonergan at Liverpool), we still find it important. I don't see why bench appearances are meaningless. @Robby.is.on: @Nehme1499: @RedPatchBoy: Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me every time you reply. We display '0' stats in the infobox when a senior player is contracted but makes no appearances - I don't know what you're trying to get at? Bench appearances are only worth anything when trying to decide when a young player has moved from 'youth' to 'senior' career. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet. For me, A goes above B as he was officially a player for the league A plays for before being a player for the league B plays for. For example, Serie A has an official list of players on their website (see Juventus). If a player sits on the bench for Juventus on 2 September, then gets his first call-up for the B team on 9 November, he was a Juventus player before being a Juventus U23 player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Being on the bench is meaningless in this context. GiantSnowman 20:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion. For me, it's relevant. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk)`

I would personally just put the B team first if that's where he gets this his first cap. If he appeared in a cup match on the bench, we wouldn't include it in the infobox, so I go with the same logic. A youth player could get slotted into that last available spot on the bench just to fill a spot, even if there's no intention of playing them. If they were consistently on the bench that's one thing I guess where you could say he's definitely a first-teamer, but a one-off bench role wouldn't warrant it. If a player makes a random one-time bench appearance in 2021 at age 16, then plays exclusively for the B team without so much as a bench appearance, until 2024 where he makes 2 appearances, what would be more meaningful 2021-2025 2(0) or 2024-2025 1(0). I'd say the latter because 2021-2025 would make it seem like he played once in 2021 and once in 2025, when it was twice in 24/25 RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced by RedPatchBoy. Let's do whatever appearance comes first. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti

I intend to create this page. This is a page about an Italian amateur competition. Is it suitable for Wikipedia? Dr Salvus (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Could I have an answer? Dr Salvus (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Bench appearances in the career statistics section & infobox

Hello. I came across a dilemma when editing Rémy Descamps. He played matches for the PSG B team from 2015 to 2017. The thing is, he also made bench appearances during 2013 and 2014. The question is whether in the career statistics section, rows with 0s should be included for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 seasons, even though he didn't play on the field. And the question is whether this should be reflected in the infobox as well; should Paris Saint-Germain B in the infobox say 2013–2017 or 2015–17?
Now, there is also a second issue... Descamps's last bench/field appearance for the PSG B team is in 2017... does this mean we stop his PSG B team presence on 2017, or 2018, when that specific season ended (he was loaned out for the rest of that season)? Or 2019, when he was sold to Charleroi after being on loan during the rest of 2017–18 and 2018–19? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How many times was he an unused substitute in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 seasons? If one or two, don't include them; if 30 then do. I think start the senior career in 2015 in this example. GiantSnowman 19:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Wait, how come the number of bench appearances is important here? This sounds a bit like the time somebody tried proposing that players become notable after 3 appearances instead of 1... what's the difference in importance between 4 and 30? (Not trying to be rude.) They both show value of how much he was on the bench, they are both valuable stats.
BTW, he made 4 bench appearances both 2013–14 and 2014–15. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Because a player (particular a goalkeeper) who makes 30 appearances on the bench is obviously a first-team member, even if they aren't playing. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 is not indicative of that at all. GiantSnowman 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Alright. But how can we decide? Where's the limit? If a player made 10 bench apps, what would you say? There needs to be a limit. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, there doesn't. Every case should be taken on its own merits for people like that. But in Descamps's case, start the senior career at 2015. GiantSnowman 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Similar answer to the discussion above: for me, his career spans from 2013 to 2017. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So if a club has a goalkeeping crisis and they put their 16 year old youth keeper on the bench for one game in 2010, but he doesn't make any more appearances (bench or on field) until 2015, are you saying we should say his senior career began in 2010? GiantSnowman 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I also don't believe that we should begin the senior career when the youth career stops. My opinion here goes hand in hand with my opinion in the "Discussion" had a few months ago about senior/youth. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. GiantSnowman 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand Nehme, he's saying that he would add that 16 year old bench player under senior, but he would continue their youth not end it, which is why it's consistent with his previous view. Say that bench appearance was in 2018, he would have youth 2015-2020 and senior from 2018-2023 with the overlap. In that case, he was saying that senior career started in 2018, but it did not end youth career, but that goes back to a previous unresolved disagreement. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I view a one-off bench appearance similar to a youth player getting to train in practice with the first-team, it's a like a reward, but doesn't signify he's a full-time senior player. Oftentimes, it's just a filling of spots. We wouldn't add the senior team if they played in a reserve match/practice/pre-season match/cup game bench. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. GiantSnowman 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, (was adding this to my previous comment) I will say this though, I agreed with Nehme that a one-off senior cap shouldn't end youth career section. Similarly, a one-off bench wouldn't really start senior, because technically nothing "started". I feel like the youth career should only end when they stop appearing in youth team matches and senior career should only start when they start appearing in senior team matches. Those two feel like they go hand-in-hand IMO, but that's not what this discussion is about RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous section. Although I'm laughing to myself at recalling the prior youth career discussion a couple months ago. I remember Nehme saying one senior appearance was meaningless with regards to ending a youth career infobox, whereas GS said it should signify the end of the youth career in the infobox. Yet here, GS is saying a bench appearance is meaningless and youth would continue, while Nehme is important and needs to be recorded in senior. I'm not trying to prove a point, I just had a little chuckle :) . RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Because there's a huge difference between being an unused substitute (as we are talking about now) and actually playing a first-team game (as we discussed previously). GiantSnowman 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I know there's a difference, I'm actually siding with you on this one. I just anticipated the opposite views based on that discussion. I wasn't trying to start anything (or re-open that past discussion). I probably should've just kept that to myself. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so let's say the senior career starts at the first official appearance. Fair enough. But in Descamps's case, where does his PSG B spell end? 2017 (last game)? 2018 (end of season of the last season he played in)? 2019 (when he was sold after being loaned out in second half of 2017-18 and full 2018-19)? I'd personally say 2017, and say that we end his PSG A career at 2019. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me add onto that: this is assuming that PSG A team should be included in the infobox. He did make bench appearances & have a professional contract, which for me, is enough for Descamps to have PSG A team included in his wikipedia page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

6 bench appearances over two seasons does not indicate that he was a member of the A team. I'd be happy having just B team in the infobox, but A team should be included purely because as he went out on loan, and we have loans coming from the A team. GiantSnowman 22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect this answer... but wait, does this mean that on Moussa Sisssako, the PSG A team should be included? (Sissako went out on loan to Liege & made no appearances earlier this year.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a player is loaned from the A team, not the B team. GiantSnowman 12:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For Moussa Sissako, when should his PSG A career start? (He never made any bench appearances, he only signed a pro contract in 2018.) Should I start it at 2018, 2019, or make it just 2020? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, signing a professional contract is not indicative. You get loads of 17 years old turning professional who don't go near the first team for 3/4 years. For Moussa Sissako I suggest start the A team in 2019, to reflect the end of the B team career and the fact he moved on loan in the 2019–20 season. GiantSnowman 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently number of bench appearances are now important in deciding whether to put a line of zeros, but in cases where a player has made no bench appearances and spent the entire season out on loan it is automatic. Spike 'em (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well how would you display it? GiantSnowman 18:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If a player does not appear on a teamsheet in a season then I'd not include a line for it. Spike 'em (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If a player played for team A, then moved to team B who promptly sent him on loan to team C, it would be incorrect to not have team B in the infobox as it would seem as if he were loaned from team A. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about the career stats section. I'd keep the ib as is and mention which team the player was on loan from in the borrowing club line in the career stats section. Spike 'em (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the regular procedure to just put "(loan)" next to the team? Like at Raffaele Alcibiade, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd just prefer the loan to be under team B and no mention of team A if he never appeared for them. Since, he'd essentially be a team B player. Now if the player never played for A or B, then sure I'd list the loan under team B. For example, Ballou Tabla when he joined Barcelona it was specifically stated in reports that he was joining Barcelona B, but even when he went on loan, we didn't add Barcelona. He was for all intents and purposes only ever a B player, even when loaned out. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

B teams cannot loan players though. It's incorrect to say that Barcelona B sent him on loan. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I view it as the same thing earlier where if the player only ever plays for B, we only include the B team in the infobox. Even though only the B is listed, we know they were part of the A organization. So a loan from B would still be known as a loan from the organization. I feel its cleaner. If A and B were both listed in the infobox, then yes, list the loan under A, but I feel adding an A 0(0) is unnecessary, if they're basically a B player. That's just my personal view, I view it more as a loan from the organization, than from the specific team. While the B team doesn't loan out players, the A team doesn't really loan players either, the club loans them out. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If a player moves from Wiki United (having never played for them) on loan to Wiki City then we include both clubs in the infobox and both teams in the career stats table. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. GiantSnowman 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, loaning players specifically from the A team is a bit silly - this would contradict loan deals during youth career, which I have seen for some players. If we are going to say that a player cannot specifically sign for the B team or A team of a club, but signs for the organization itself, why can only the A team loan players out? The club itself loans players out. I don't want to create another lengthy argument, but I think that Moussa Sissako should not have the A team included. If someone explains why I am wrong, I'll listen. I would just like to know what to do, because this is starting to become really confusing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

League categories

Hello. I would like to know when to include league categories (like for example Category:Ligue 2 players) in player articles. Of course, we include that category when a player appears in that league, but what if they play for a club in that league but never make an appearance? (My personal opinion is no, we would not include it, but that is just my thought.) Would it be reasonable? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If they never make an appearance in the league then they are not eligible for the category. GiantSnowman 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cotterill

I notice his managerial statistics table has been amended to exclude a game when he was in hospital with Covid-19. The verifying reference from Soccerbase includes this game as, presumably, Cotterill was still Shrewsbury manager at the time regardless of him being in hospital. There have been many instances of a manager being absent for a game or two and I don’t remember excluding those games from their stats. What’s the general view on if we include or exclude games where a manager is absent from the game itself?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They should definitely be included, he was still employed as manager at the time. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He was still the team's manager, even if he wasn't at the ground. Same as managers who miss games for e.g. touchline bans or other medical reasons. We should follow what the sources say, and the sources include that game, so we should too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And to change the stats based on him being in hospital with COVID is original research unless sources do the same. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Phil Thompson was acting manager when Gérard Houllier spent some months recovering from heart surgery. Missing a few games for a temporary illness is not the same thing seen as they are still picking the team and directing things from home.--EchetusXe 15:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Club categories

Hello. Do we include club categories (like Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C. players) for these different scenarios? I know its obvious we include it when a player plays in a match for the first team, but I would like to know if we include it for these cases.
1. Players that did not play in a match for the club, but were on the A team.
2. Players that played for the B team.
3. Players that played for the B team but did not make any (known) appearances.
4. Youth players.
Of course, this is assuming there is no category for the B team, which there is not for PSG, for example. Please answer each 1, 2, 3, and 4 individually. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If a player is contracted to a club, even youth only, then they appear in the club player category, even if they do not play. In countries where many clubs have A and B teams in the same league system (France, Spain etc.) then is a player only plays for the B team then only include them in that category (if there is a separate category - if no separate category then there should be if the B team has a separate article); if a player plays for both A and B team then include them in both categories if there are separate categories. GiantSnowman 15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Include all player , adult or youth. Personally, there may be some exception likes Parma F.C. (signed 100 players and all loaned out) , Rentistas (the club that Hulk (footballer)'s transfer fee wired to). Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In France there should not be any B team categories. Players signed for either A team or B team should go in the main category for the club, regardless of any appearances made. Gricehead (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware we included the categories for youth teams. So, for example, should Hassan Maatouk have Category:Rot-Weiss Essen players? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Only 5 teams from transcluded table

How do I only display 5 teams in the table here? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've put a |showlimit=5 in the table module in 2020–21 Serie A (women). Gricehead (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo first billionaire footballer

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Dollars, further input is required. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If more people could give their opinion it would be greatly appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

i league india

please revert infobox edit as it is still joint number 1 in structure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.25.3 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

C.A. Fénix

There are two clubs known as 'C.A. Fénix' - Centro Atlético Fénix in Uruguay (article currently located at C.A. Fénix) and Club Atlético Fénix in Argentina (article currently located at Club Atlético Fénix). The current article locations are clearly not good enough. There is also a disambiguation page at CA Fenix. I think that either we need:

1. Articles located at C.A. Fénix (Uruguay) and C.A. Fénix (Argentina) respectively, with disambiguation page at C.A. Fénix; or
2. Articles located at Centro Atlético Fénix and Club Atlético Fénix respectively, with disambiguation page at C.A. Fénix.

What do you think is best? I will then start formal a RM. GiantSnowman 16:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would opt for the former. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Full name as article title (which you can pipe it, or does not need to). Bracket as redirects (which you must pipe it). Matthew hk (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As a bit of a precedent, there are 3 Albion Rovers. Albion Rovers F.C. from Coatbridge which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and then Albion Rovers F.C. (Newport) and Albion Rovers FC (Cairnlea) which use the city rather than the country as the disambiguator. Personally, I would prefer the latter per WP:ATDAB as that is a natural disambiguator. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

South American clubs seem to use the full name as the title (Club Atletico, rather than C.A.), for example Club Atlético Lanús, Club Atlético River Plate, and Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield. I would opt for option 2. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not just set up a RM with Option 1 and Option 2 similar to this RM request? Then a vote could be tabulated directly in the RM instead of here then there? RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: if you wish to set up the RM before I find the time to do it then be my guest! GiantSnowman 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Started it here: Talk:C.A. Fénix RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers - one thing ticked off my 'to do' list tomorrow... GiantSnowman 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Sakiv removed the "See also" section from 2021 WAFF Championship, I reverted him, he re-reverted me (violating WP:BRD). I restored the original version letting him know about BRD, he reverted me once again without any comment. I would rather not violate WP:3RR, so what's the correct course of action here? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me again, I have only removed an unrelated link from this article. What is the real connection between the FIFA Arab Cup held in Qatar and the WAFF Championship hosted by the UAE? They are two different competitions. The first tournament will also be attended by African teams. Your recent behavior is unacceptable. I was discussing with you another issue while you were busy monitoring my edits.--Sakiv (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You have all the right to remove the section, as I have the right to re-instate it. As we are at an impasse, we should have a discussion (and not keep reverting each other).

My point is that they are similar competitions, where the 12 teams in the WAFF Championship are all part of the Arab Cup (and make up over half of the teams there). The two competitions don't necessarily have to be held by the same organizer and have to feature the exact same 12 clubs in order for them to be in the "See also" section.

Also, no edit monitoring going on. Is it that improbable that a Lebanese editor who mainly focuses on Lebanese and Asian football has the WAFF Championship under his watchlist? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Plus, you didn't really seem open to talk in the previous discussion as you just removed your response towards me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You did answer others here after my recent reply so I got a feeling that you wouldn't respond.

So according to your vision, we must add links to almost all football articles because they are related to each other, for example, we must add the 2019–20 FC Bayern Munich season to the 2020 FIFA Club World Cup and the UEFA Euro 2020 to the football tournament at the Olympic Games because they were both postponed due to COVID.--Sakiv (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bayern itself is already linked in 2020 FIFA Club World Cup, and there is no need to link to all 6 teams' season articles. The Olympics are a U23 competition while the Euro is a senior competition, so they are not related. Notice how Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics has a "See more" section linking to similar competitions (such as the Asian, African, and Pan American Games). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of everything you mentioned. Again, the two tournaments are not related and there is no source confirming what you say. The WAFF Championship is not always a senior-team tournament in the sense that the participating teams are not obliged to send their main players. Do you want more explanation?--Sakiv (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sakiv should not have re-removed the section after he was reverted, per BRD, and instead you should have gone to the article talk page to discuss. Instead you're here after an edit war. Fine. What is the relevance/purpose of the 'see also' section? GiantSnowman 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

All links that are within this section must show a relevance, but in this case I do not see that there is any special link between the two tournaments as the first tournament is usually not a priority for the participating countries and is organized by the regional association while the second will be under the supervision of FIFA and often it will be a tournament of high importance.--Sakiv (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, WP:BRD-NOT states BRD is never a reason for reverting, BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once and BRD is not mandatory. So "violating BRD" is not a reason to revert. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of national team results

I know we have had this discussion before but, following on from a discussion here, I would like to reaffirm that the correct way to list national football team results is to use a table. The most resent discussion I can find which mentions this was about club season articles here but it didn't really go into too much detail. For background, I had created Argentina national football team results (2000–2019) as I was unaware Argentina national football team results (2000–19) had been created by @Sakiv: as I was working through creating earlier results lists.

As national football team results articles list the results of national teams, they are subject to MOS:LIST so they should be constructed in a format which fits the established manual of style. There are a number of different acceptable styles but as these are standalone chronological lists, they also fall under WP:SAL which details a range of specialised lists. None of the specialised lists use a similar format to a list of football box templates and none of these include or could reasonably be expected to include sports results. However, under WP:WHENTABLE, sports results are specifically included as occasions when tables are most useful. I don't see why we should be deviating from this and using lists of football box templates. Football box templates are most useful in tournament articles when the match result is the most important piece of information and can then add things like goalscorers and stadia where this is required. The collapsible football box acts as a barrier to information by hiding it away which is contrary to WP:ACCESS. By using a table all, of the information is displayed in an equally - if not more - easy way to understand and follow without hiding information relevant to the article. As an example, Scotland national football team results (1872–1914) is a featured list. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: Argentina national football team results (2000–19) should be moved to Argentina national football team results (2000–2019). Regarding the usage of tables instead of the collapsible boxes, I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: If that is correct, why do you use collapsible boxes instead of tables for Lebanon's results articles?--Sakiv (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Because I shouldn't be. Once I get the time I'll fix those pages. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is just totally unnecessary and illogical. Why change thousands of articles now after years without any objection? The editor above wants his opinion to prevail just because he likes it.--Sakiv (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

SFS has brought up several guidelines to back up the usage of tables over the collapsible boxes, it's not just because he likes it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nehme. It's not because I prefer one over the other. When I first started editing articles like this and club seasons, I used the football box template because I believed it was correct. I have since been shown that that isn't the case and that there were policies and guidelines already in place which mean we should be using tables. As a result I have changed how I edit. Creating these articles and improving the already created ones takes time which is why I've only got through all the OFC nations and Argentina. If anyone wishes to help, it would be most appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Loan in club career section

Hello. I have seen different things for different articles, which is why I would like to know what the correct way to do this is. Basically, when there is a sub-heading 2 for a loan in the club career section, is it appropriate to write "Marseille (loan)" or "Loan to Marseille"? I came across this issue on Arek Milik; there are some other weird sub headings there that I think an experienced football editor should check out. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

'Loan to Marseille' is better IMHO. GiantSnowman 11:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with "Loan to Marseille". But bear in mind that it really isn't necessary to have subheadings every time a player goes out on loan or for every season, particularly if the section created has minimal content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - some editors seem obsessed with the idea that a player's article needs a subheading for every single club, which in many cases looks ridiculous. In the case of Milik, I really don't think his six games at Leverkusen merit a separate subheading/section, which is never going to have any in-depth content. Although, to be fair, it doesn't look as daft as some articles I've seen on English players who, after dropping out of professional football, had short spells at 15 different non-league clubs and have a subheading for every single one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I reckon this stems from the articles being written in real time and not retroactively. So when a player signs for a new club, an editor will add a sub-heading, since you don't know how long or in-depth the period will be. And most players don't have editors going back and reassessing years later. --SuperJew (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Fabrizio Romano

Hello. I wrote the draft article Draft:Fabrizio Romano (journalist); you may know this guy as he’s pretty well-known in the football world. Anyways, I would like some advice and help on the article writing process. First of all, does this article meet GNG? I personally think it does, as it has several independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. If it needs more info and sources, I would greatly appreciate some help for the article. If someone is interested in writing more about Romano, then please help. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I wouldn’t use the article name Fabrizio Romano simply, because that is also the name of an Italian actor who has a page on the Italian Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If the article were to be created, it should be located at Fabrizio Romano since the page doesn't exist yet. The existence of a Fabrizio Romano page on it.wiki for another subject is not important for us. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Anything about the article itself? Oh and by the way, I would make it at Fabrizio Romano (journalist) because otherwise it will be indexed incorrectly on Google and users will be very confused. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Google would create two different profiles at that point (given that there would also be two different wikidata IDs). Regarding the page itself, I think it easily passes WP:GNG. If I get the time I'll try to clean it up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! By the way, would making a "For the actor, see it:Fabrizio Romano" at the top of the page be appropriate? Lastly, I hope you don't mind, but I moved the page to Fabrizio Romano already. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah being WP:BOLD is not an issue. I would avoid cross-wiki linking (especially in the hatnote). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks again! Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Serbian names

Should Vladimir Molerovic and Demir Avdic be moved to Vladimir Molerović and Demir Avdić respectively? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What do sources say? GiantSnowman 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Some use "c", others us "ć". I don't know if the ones using "c" are just lazy and don't feel like using the diacritic, or if the ones using "ć" are just assuming that it's the correct spelling even though it may not be. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Serbian PrvaLiga website has the diacritic on Molerovic; presumably that's how it was spelt when he played in it. And SrbijaSport has the diacritic on Avdic, I'm guessing they ought to know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It can be a choice by the source not to use extended Latin characters even if the player's name contains them. The World Curling Federation for example, often use aa instead of å and oe instead of ø so that could explain why some sources do and some don't include the diacritic. I would agree with Struway though as you'd expect Serbian language sources to know whether or not the name includes it so they should probably be moved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I miss the diacritic hatnote template, which is deleted. Matthew hk (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Assistant manager honours

Hey. Do we include honours for assistant coaches? (My personal opinion: no.) I would just like to know if this was something we did. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say no too. Honours should go to managers and players, IMO, otherwise we should be adding titles to fitness coaches, analysts and so on... MYS77 ^✉ 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If they received an honour, why not? I've watched the backroom staff received medals on the TV. Govvy (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to say no. It's entirely possible that the club gave the assistant manager a physical medal, given that in the Premier League they get about 40 medals to dish out or something, but a) it would be very hard to prove/source and b) as mentioned above, it would be the start of a slippery slope where we list honours for physios, conditioning coaches and who knows who else..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Except physios and conditioning coaches don't have Wikipedia pages... (I still say no, but just putting that out there.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable people could have been assisting staff in the past. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Some physios and similar have articles. Arsenal won a ton of honours while Gary Lewin was physio, should we note them as honours on his article? Definitely not IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Peter Taylor is the exception that proves the rule. I can't think of another case where it would be warranted.--EchetusXe 13:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I love it, there is no declaration which you want, prose or listed. Seriously, there is nothing with listing what a person has been honoured with in a paragraph. Honours lists after all is just repeated text!! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I-League

Yes, this has already been discussed way too much.

An IP (78.1.24.0) has messaged me on my talk page telling me that the I-League will become the 2nd tier of Indian football starting from the 2021–22 season, using this website as a source.

As far as I can see, the article says: "starting with the 2022-’23 season, the winner of I-League will stand a chance to be promoted to the ISL" and "for the first three years (2019-’20, 2020-’21 and 2021-’22), there will continue to be no promotion and relegation in the ISL", which to me means that the winner of the 2022–23 season will go up and play in the 2023–24 ISL.

He insists that it's from the 2021–22 season. What's the situation? Tagging @ArnabSaha as I remember him being an active editor in Indian football. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well the article does say that after 20-21 two I league teams will be allowed to join the ISL, signifying that they will move up. Even though there's no official pro/rel until 2023 doesn't prevent it from being second tier. If you look at the USA, there's no ProRel but MLS is first tier and USL Championship is second tier and many of the new teams that join MLS come from the USL Championship, which sounds like what the first couple of years of the ISL will be like. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a second-tier league can send teams to the AFC Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't notice that in the article. When I read it, I thought it was referring to the ISL. I obviously didn't read with too much attention to detail. I see your point. Closest comparison I can think of is Canada, where the top teams play in MLS and can qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League via the Canadian Domestic Cup, while the teams in the official Canadian top tier qualify for the second-tier Concacaf League via the league. Seems like the I-League is going to be like that "you're 'top tier', but not the 'real top tier' " RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it's very clearly a "1.5-tier" league, as it is in a transitioning phase to become a second-tier league. Also, for what I understood, the two 20-21 I-League teams that are allowed to join the ISL don't necessarily join based on raking, rather on money (like franchises in the MLS). So I wouldn't really consider it an actual promotion system. Again, I'm not really knowledgeable in Indian football so hopefully someone who knows more about this can clear this up. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

look... (to mention im close friend of indian national coach stimac and follow afc for years) this season 2 i league teams joined isl on money basis. also, this season is third since merger was mentioned and afc cup allowed i league spot 3 times till next season. furthermore, when next i league season page is created table will show "promotion to isl" on top 2 spors. as season is in two calendar years, it is clearly becoming second tier from 2021-22. other details like future promotion, one league, afc spots...are awaiting decisions but for next season thats confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.190.249 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging Nehme1499. in the roadmap published in 2019, the status of i-league wasnt determined. but it said 2 teams would promote to isl in 2022-23. also i-league was given a special status/license by aiff to let clubs to participate in afc cup till 2022-23. now, the media sources already say i-league to be 2nd tier. We can say i-league is the de-facto top tier till 2022-23. (i will attach sources and later).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@saha afc cup 2022 and 2023 are different... and you should know from the moment next i league starts (21-22) table will show "promotion to isl" making it 2nd tier. few months till that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.81.30 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

2021-22 wont see promotion from i-league. another team from anywhere would join isl as an expansion team.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield Town

I know Wakefield A.F.C. got away with having their article remain on Wikipedia recently, despite having never played in an FA cup competition or at Step 6, but are Sheffield Town F.C. really notable enough? I might start producing articles for all teams in the same league if so. Kivo (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wakefield article was kept because multiple editors argued that it met WP:GNG. This was in no way an automatic green light for other clubs at the same level to be kept. If other clubs in the same league can be proven to meet GNG then feel free to create the articles, but don't create them all just to make some sort of point....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's only prodded, so given the Wakefield surviving AFD, seems this should be at AFD. Oh wait ... you prodded it. Oops ... Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Kenyan Premier League

new logo on media pages pls upload who can — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.81.30 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

AC Milan, A.C. Milan, or Milan

Hello. I have seen some different articles refer to the football club A.C. Milan in the past few days. This issue came to me when I edited Sokratis Papastathopoulos - in the infobox here, it says "A.C. Milan". Personally, I think the best way is to write AC Milan, because just Milan could be confused with Inter Milan. Is there consensus on the correct way to write the club name? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @Robby.is.on: I'm tagging two of you because you are the two editors I most frequently interact with. Sorry to bother you, but I would like an opinion on this. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I prefer 'AC Milan' but any of them is OK. GiantSnowman 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Between "A.C." and "AC", I think the latter is better. Milan on its own is less common in English than with "AC". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. "Milan" on its own is not ideal. I've seen this discussed a few times and there have been edit wars about it. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, AC Milan it is. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely prefer AC Milan. I know its often written as just Milan, but I think AC Milan is better (without periods). RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to note that in the Serie A season articles (see 2020–21 Serie A), the clubs are referred to as Internazionale and Milan. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The common names are AC Milan and Inter Milan, so maybe we should change that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I have noticed that as well, particularly with Inter Milan, that it goes back and forth throughout the history of the Serie A and European Cup as being referred to as Inter Milan or Internazionale. I would prefer it consistently be Inter Milan in a league table or in cup rounds. But I think find to refer to the club as Internazionale or the Nerazzurri in the body of articles so we're not writing Inter Milan in every sentence. This also brings up a similar naming consistency that I find issue with in whether clubs have their articles as "F.C." or "FC". It seems like "F.C." is just reserved for British clubs but I don't know why. For instance, Chelsea is "Chelsea F.C." on wikipedia but the club is referred to as "Chelsea FC" on their own official club website. Similarly, Morecambe is "Morecambe F.C." on their wikipedia article but their own badge states simply "Morecambe FC". Outside of the UK, PSV is another one that I have noticed that constantly goes back and forth between being referred to as PSV and PSV Eindhoven. Rupert1904 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Milan" is usually enough to identify A.C. Milan, but only once the latter name has been established in the article. After you've used "A.C. Milan" or "AC Milan" once, you can usually get away with just "Milan". Because you would never refer to Inter as just "Milan", I don't think there's much risk of confusion between the two clubs. In infoboxes, I would refer to them both as "Milan" and "Inter" or "Internazionale"; some might choose "Inter Milan" for the latter, but that still shouldn't cause any issues. – PeeJay 08:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

More often than not, European countries refer to Internazionale or Inter more than Inter Milan. Inter Milan is more English driven. As for the info box, I feel we should be strict and stick to Inter Milan and AC Milan. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've never really seen "Internazionale" being used at all. I think at the end it's between Inter (the only way to refer to the club in Italy, not super common in English) and Inter Milan (not used at all in Italy, very common in English), and for me on en.wiki we should be using the latter. Of course, in the body, to avoid repetition we can use Inter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do like to travel and I can only tell you what I've seen in the news from other countries. But things change over time, when they use to show a table in the paper or on the TV, they use to spell out Internazionale in the table. But the results they would have Inter. I am not sure why, but I assumed there must be some Italian language rules I don't know about why they did that. Either that or working on some character length! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to England player infoboxes

Hi guys, a number of IPs (I think all from the same person) appear to be making disruptive edits to England player infoboxes such as Calum Chambers, Adam Lallana, Dominic Solanke and Nathaniel Clyne among others, claiming that their international careers have ended despite not provideing a source. A user account (Chedix, who has been blocked for the same on three occasions previously) is now involved as well (may be him behind the IPs also). Can someone have a look at this please. I've requested a protection from Calum Chambers as it's on my watchlist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Chambers played three games in 2014, Clyne last played in 2016, Solanke only played a game as a sub in 2017, and Lallana last played one game as a sub in 2018. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb I'd also 5 years without an appearance before closing the international years. GiantSnowman 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Although Chambers has not formally announced his retirement from international football (because, let's face it, it would be utterly pretentious for him to do so after just three caps) he hasn't been called up now for more than six years, and realistically there's no chance of him being called up again any time soon, so I wouldn't disagree with closing off his international career. It can always be re-opened if he experiences some amazing career renaissance and gets called up again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say to put Chambers, Clyne, and Solanke down as retired internationally. There is still the outside chance that Lallana could play for the national side again. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This thing again... Why on Earth would anyone think that end year in NT career means retirement? 99% of international players would simply stop being called up without any sort of announcements.--BlameRuiner (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. The oft-held notion that we can't close off the international career of a player who is still active unless they have announced their international retirement is ridiculous. Dominic Solanke could easily play professionally for another 10 years or more. If he never gets called up for England again but doesn't formally announce his international retirement (which, let's face it, under that scenario he never would), would we still be expected to show his England career as ongoing in 2030 based on the fact that he played for England for 15 minutes 13 years earlier.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that there has to come a point when we close the book on a player's international career, but encyclopaedically speaking, when is the right time to do that? Without a source to say their international career is dead and buried, we'd just be assigning an arbitrary time limit after their last appearance. If we're okay with that, that's fine, I just wanted to make sure we were all aware of what such a decision would mean encyclopaedically. – PeeJay 12:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You're not assigning any limit by putting end date. It's just what it is - the most recent year when player appeared fot NT, which is perfectly sourced by any external link to Soccerway or NFT or whatever. He or she gets called up again five years later - perfect, go ahead and remove end year. If you ask me, leaving the end date empty is more misleading. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the Millennium Stadium a football stadium?

Not sure if anyone caught this this morning, but User:Strayacj seems to think that because the Millennium Stadium is owned and operated by the Welsh Rugby Union, it cannot be considered a football stadium by any means, and has thus removed it from the list of the largest stadiums in the Football in the United Kingdom article. Any thoughts on this? For my part, I would argue that the Millennium Stadium is definitely a football stadium even though that isn't its primary usage – it hosted FA Cup, League Cup and play-off finals while Wembley was being rebuilt, it hosted football matches at the 2012 Summer Olympics, it hosted the 2017 UEFA Champions League Final and as recently as 2018, it hosted a friendly between Wales and Spain. I struggle to see how anyone could claim it shouldn't be listed among football stadiums. – PeeJay 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely a football stadium, even if it hosts other events (including rugby) as well. Most stadiums do! GiantSnowman 13:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a football stadium. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Football in the United Kingdom#Millennium Stadium and seek consensus. GiantSnowman 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I posted here. – PeeJay 15:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a football stadium when that's it's primary purpose, however it's technically not just a football stadium, so should be described as having multi-use. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not it should be described as a multi-use stadium is a different discussion. We're really just trying to establish whether it should be listed among the largest football stadiums in the UK in the Football in the United Kingdom article. – PeeJay 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:1975-76 kicker Bundesliga Team of the Season

{{1975-76 kicker Bundesliga Team of the Season}} and similar, created by @Lnhbm: - from what I can see these aren't official awards, just a magazine awards - and therefore surely overkill? GiantSnowman 19:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, maybe such information could be included in a table on the magazine article, but templates are not necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

These are kicker awards, not just "some magazine awards", so those are THE awards. Like France Football Ballon d'Or. I propose adding them to 1975–76 Bundesliga and other articles. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Being a prominent football magazine does not mean that its annual awards merit navboxes. Should we do the same for L'Equipe, Mundial, FourFourTwo, WSC etc. etc.? GiantSnowman 13:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that the magazine is promiment (although it is), I am saying that kicker season awards are prominent awards in German football. As prominent as it gets actually. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So are they the main/primary football awards granted in Germany, similar to England's PFA Awards? GiantSnowman 14:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, kicker also presents Footballer of the Year (Germany) awards. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't even google the past few season's teams. Looks more like a minor sidenote in their yearly magazine. There is no real trophy for it. -Koppapa (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Koppapa: This was the 2nd result for searching "kicker Bundesliga Team of the Season". In German you probably get even better results obviously. --SuperJew (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Career vs Club career

Hello. When a player has never played international football, would it be appropriate to name the "Club career" section just "Career"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't see why not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not just appropriate but preferable. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If said player then became a manager, should the section be called "Club career", "Career", or "Playing career" (as opposed to the "Managerial career" section)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Playing career -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And then we incorporate the club & international playing career inside the playing career section, correct? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

For managers who played at both club and international levels, there would be three sections: Club career, International career, Managerial career. If they only played at club level, and then became a coach, we would have two sections: Playing career and Managerial career. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Charleroi move

Hello. I came across the article R. Charleroi S.C., a Belgian football club. Am I the only one that finds that the name of this article is a bit unusual? I mean, it is not often we see an initial instead of a name in the article. What I'm saying is that I suggest we move this article to Royal Charleroi S.C. or maybe Sporting Charleroi, because having "R. Charleroi" is awkward in my opinion. I didn't move it myself because I wanted to know if I was doing the right thing by moving this. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Royal Charleroi S.C. following a discussion ay WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hey, GS, I don't really know how to start a discussion at requested moves... could you do that? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your preferred location, and why? I can then start the discussion on your behalf. GiantSnowman 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: My preferred location is Royal Charleroi S.C., because it includes the official club name in it as a whole. Also because several reliable sources refer to it as such, including Soccerway. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion here. GiantSnowman 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. Not to put a burden on you, but a similar move is in order for R. Olympic Charleroi Châtelet Farciennes in my opinion. Do you agree? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait and see the consensus of this discussion first. Then you can give it a go yourself ;) GiantSnowman 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a relic that someone mass move all Belgian football article that turn all "Royal" prefix to "R.", may be all other Belgian club name need a review and RM. Matthew hk (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should maybe revive the discussion at the Charleroi move? We need to make a decision at some point. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It will be reviewed by an admin in due course. GiantSnowman 15:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abel Ferreira

Good afternoon,

since its inception, this article has been all but improved and maintained by me, save the managerial statistic chart. Several years ago, i added a fourth paragraph in his playing career, which read "From 2008–09 onwards, Ferreira began having stiff competition from Brazilian Pedro Silva. This situation was aggravated from January 2010 onwards, after the purchase of Braga's João Pereira."

Last month, content was removed for not being written in proper English (i fail to see where, hence i come to this forum) and sourced. I re-inserted with two sources (this one backed paragraph until end of the first sentence https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-nos/sporting/detalhe/determinacao-de-pedro-silva-premiada; this ref backed the rest https://expresso.pt/desporto/joao-pereira-o-novo-menino-bonito-do-sporting=f55794), it was removed again with summaries such as "back to good English". First article clearly mentions Mr. Silva "stole" Mr. Ferreira's starting job in the 2008/09 season, and the Expresso piece clearly speaks about both losing their position when Mr. Pereira arrived, in January 2010 which is the timeline i wrote.

My head is spinning like a dreidel trying to see where i went wrong, some inputs would be highly appreciated. Attentively, continue the good work y'all! Is it a matter of grammar or akin? Has to be, because content was sourced in my book. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Aggravated isn't a good choice of word for the context. The word 'aggravated' usually refers to a recurring injury or somebody getting on your nerves/annoying you. Switching to "the level of competition increased" or something would make for better readability. Other than tweaking that one word, I see no English issues RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hippo43: pinging other involved user. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "aggravated" a synonym for "worsened"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a synonym, but some words are used mainly in certain contexts. It's why just plucking a word from a thesaurus doesn't always work because if it's used in an unconvential way, it sounds off. I normally only see aggravated used to worsening 'physical' incidents involving a body, like aggravating an injury.

As I noted when Quite A Character mentioned this issue on my Talk page, Hippo43 explained their removal of the content at (their Talk page): "But, to answer your point about the Abel Ferreira article, you didn't source it. The source did not say "from 2008-09 onwards" and it did not say anyone "faced stiff competition" or similar. You wanted it to say something that it didn't. I don't know if the problem there is your English or your comprehension." I haven't read the sources but that concern would have to be addressed, I reckon. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I did not ping the other user involved not out of being discourteous, i was told at their talkpage i'm full of myself and to leave them alone. Which i did, coming here for further help.

@Robby.is.on: and others, i'm retired, so i should not care less if Mr. Ferreira's article (or any other article for that matter) is improved or not. Strangely enough, i do. Robby, the Record newspaper article says Silva began starting over Ferreira at Sporting in the 2008/09 season, why do you say it does not? --Quite A Character (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Retired? It seems you edited as late as three days ago: 2001:8A0:7667:5801:DC2:B76A:DCAA:24AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)?

I didn't say that, I quoted Hippo43 and said I didn't look into the sources. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies @Robby.is.on:, my bad in reading your comment. --Quite A Character (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing about discourtesy. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I know kind fellow user, i was just setting the record straight. Thank you for the assistance. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked again at the sources today, but the comment on my talk page explains my thinking - "But, to answer your point about the Abel Ferreira article, you didn't source it. The source did not say "from 2008-09 onwards" and it did not say anyone "faced stiff competition" or similar. You wanted it to say something that it didn't."
I considered it an example of an editor trying to insert a narrative that was not present in the sources. It would be good to get the thoughts of other editors. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at the Record source, it says (dated March 2009) that Pedro Silva had broken into the team and played 3 of the last 4 games, and that Abel had been on the bench. It obviously doesn't say "from 2008-09 onwards" as it was not writing about the following seasons. I don't think it says anything about "stiff competition" or any similar phrase.// Hippo43 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Expresso source only says that João Pereira went straight into the starting eleven, into the spot that Abel and Pedro Silva had held. It doesn't say anything about how often Abel subsequently played (if he got his place back, or played in another position, for example) or how much competition there was.
Again, this to me is trying to construct a narrative - it may be correct, but it doesn't appear in these sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

B team link.

On Morgan Sanson, Mattythewhite reverted my edit. He says there should be no link from "Le Mans II" in the infobox to the main Le Mans FC article. I think there should be. Should we add link for II teams to the main team? (For French clubs, there are no II team articles I am aware of.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would create a redirect from Le Mans FC II to Le Mans FC and link to that. This way, in case the B team gets created, the player is already linked to the proper page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Many French teams whose B team plays in Championnat National 2 or Championnat National 3 have B team squadlists on the main page. Le Mans doesn't at the moment, admittedly. it does have the National 3 navigation template though, as does every club article where the B team plays in National 3. I would disagree with both Mattythewhite and Nehme1499 here and argue for the continuation of linking to Le Mans with a pipe to Le Mans II or Le Mans B. There are literally thousands of French player articles where this already happens. Edit to add: We definitely don't want to be creating separate B team articles for France per many recent discussions here. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have French B team articles - we do for other countries. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Literally no French B team article would be notable. They don't compete in the national cup competition, and can't rise above the amateur divisions. Gricehead (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In which case (GNG notability notwithstanding, of course, in the same way that e.g. Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy is considered notable) the B team should have a section on the main article, with appropriate redirects pointing there. GiantSnowman 15:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of B team articles we should link to the first team. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with B team articles. If those don't exist, then linking to the First team is appropriate, but I prefer Nehme's suggestion of a re-direct, since this would then automatically fix later if an article is created, rather than having to go back and fix them all manually. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So, what's the conclusion? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Create Le Mans FC II if it passes WP:GNG. If not, create a section for Le Mans FC II in the Le Mans FC article, and create a redirect at Le Mans FC II to the specific section in the Le Mans FC article. Link the player directly to Le Mans FC II regardless. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Le Mans FC II will never be notable; it cannot qualify for cup competitions and cannot access any professional level of French football, the maximum level being the 4th tier. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember that WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, not an actual notability guideline like WP:NFOOTY. If the club passes GNG it is considered to be notable (I don't know if it is). If not, Le Mans FC II should still be created as a redirect to Le Mans FC's section on the B team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Friendly match score in text.

What would be more appropriate, "John Template scored his first goal for Templatonia in a 4–0 friendly win over Samplia", or "John Template scored his first goal for Templatonia in a 4–0 friendly match win over Samplia". (The difference is the inclusion or "match" after friendly.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for the word "match". Nobody every refers in English to a "friendly match", they just say a friendly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "friendly match" is a bit redundant. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Eizagirre vs Eizaguirre

Hi all, I've just created Nerea Eizagirre but there is an issue in that her surname is spelled differently depending on which source you look at. La Liga, Mundo Deportivo, AS and Marca all use 'Eizagirre' and this is also the spelling used on her official Instagram and Twitter. Most English language sources I find, including UEFA and Soccerway, have the 'Eizaguirre' spelling. Would we use the spelling that the player herself uses or would we go with what the English-language media tends to use in this case? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you've got the name spelled correctly. I think we can rely on the subject to spell her own name right, surely? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I think 'Eizaguirre' is the Anglicised version of 'Eizagirre'. I'm sticking with the spelling that the player herself uses for now but didn't know if there was a general rule in such cases or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go by common name in these cases (which is what I do with Lebanese players for the various "Mohammad/Mohamed/Mohamad", or "El Zein/Al Zein/Zein" etc...) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In general this is one of the differences between Basque and Castillian (Spanish) spelling norms, others of this are tx/ch, b/v and k/qu. Historically the name possibly didn't have a U, in the Franco era it definitely would have to 'standardise' names - although it may have been a less forced change as happens over time in all cultures (and Basque names in Latin America are almost always changed to the Castillian spelling and so that's became a more familiar form of some names in football culture, e.g Goycoechea is the same name as Goikoetxea). In the modern era within Spain, some have since amended their name back to the Basque variant, others haven't. And how it's displayed at times depends on the publisher's attitude to the Basque language - some will subtly Castillian-ise Basque spellings, and some on the other 'side' of the issue will Basque-ise Castillian spellings. In this instance, the majority seem to use Eizagirre, including Spanish Wikipedia and most tellingly the player herself (and she is from an area which has a strong Basque language presence so people with that surname living there are more likely to use the 'no U' spelling, although it's not an exact science by any means). Crowsus (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2001 FIFA Club World Championship

Hello, I am hoping for some input regarding the 2001 FIFA Club World Championship article. The tournament was cancelled just over two months before it was planned to begin, but the participants and match schedule had been confirmed by FIFA. For the last 15 years, the schedule has been listed on the article. Recently I decided to reformat the schedule using the standard {{football box}} template, though Sportsfan 1234 has now removed the matches as they "never took place" and supposedly give a "false impression these matches happened" (despite the fact that the infobox, lead and matches note the cancellation). Even though the tournament was cancelled, I believe the information is still noteworthy to include, just as is done with other cancelled tournaments (for example 2020 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship) and walkovers (for example 2018 CAF Champions League qualifying rounds and 2020 AFC Cup qualifying play-offs). Thoughts? Also pinging BlameRuiner, who also restored the matches but was reverted. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If everything was cancelled, meaning no match took place, why even include any of this? In my opinion it's meaningless. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The tournament was organised and on the verge of taking place. If they'd never scheduled any of the matches, I'd agree with you, but matches had stadiums and kick-off times assigned. – PeeJay 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree. If FIFA themselves confirmed the match schedule, is much more informative to keep the matches listed, providing that an explanation saying that FIFA confirmed the schedule and the tournament was later cancelled, of course. MYS77 ^✉ 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If the matches was scheduled to take place but was cancelled than why remove those groups especially if FIFA themselves confirmed the schedule. HawkAussie (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the scheduled matches 100% and I think the bold removal was inappropriate. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much. Just makes the artilce so much longer. Just linking then schedule would be ok for me. -07:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Linking seasons in career statistics section

I've seen different articles have different things: how would we link a particular season like "2016–17" in the career statistics section? Some articles have "2016–17 Templatonian Premier League" while some others have "2016–17 Sample FC season". What's the correct one? League or club season? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I link to the club season article where possible. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Club season article if it exists (since will show all competitions that are in the stats tables), if no club season article then link to league season article. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the club season would be notable, i.e in a fully-pro league, then link to that whether the season article actually exists or not. Link to the league season only if the club season wouldn't be notable: a league season article is almost never relevant to an individual player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I only link to club seasons if they exist or I can assume they will exist in the near future. The Italian third division is pro, but I won't expect 2016–17 Santarcangelo Calcio to pop up anytime soon, so I just link to 2016–17 Lega Pro. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What Nehme said. I'll check to see if one exists (or others exist in the past) for the club. Otherwise, I'll just do the league. I try to avoid the redlinks in the stats table. If there's some really small league that doesn't have a season page, I just leave it in regular unlinked font RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yahia Fofana

Hello. I don't want to start a whole debate, but here's the story: Yahia Fofana made his debut for Le Havre AC in 2019 (in the league cup), and we know that the senior career starts after the first appearance. The thing is, Fofana made 17 bench appearances during 2017–18. I'm pretty sure we said that a player's senior career only starts after the first appearance, but with 17 bench appearances in that season, it looks as if Fofana was clearly a member of the first team on this occasion. GS said that if it was only a GK filling in a few games on the bench it wasn't important, but 17 games for me indicates he was part of the first team. Anyways, I would just like to know if y'all thought it would be appropriate to write "2017–" or "2019–" for this specific example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say 2017–. However, I still think we should "open" the senior career when he makes his first bench appearance (not necessarily on the pitch). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think GiantSnowman will get mad if we debate about this again. From what I understood, we start the senior career if the player is a regular with the first team on the bench. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah GS and I have differing opinions. Regardless, I think we can both agree that, at least in Fofana's case, his career still started in 2017 as he was part of the first team 17 times in 2017–18. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Liga MX playoffs / Liguilla

Hi, this is probably the third time I've raised this question here in last 12 months. Unfortunately, I haven't had enough replies regarding this. So I'd like to give it a third and final try! :)

Should we add Liga MX playoff matches (Liguilla till last season, Repechage + Liguilla this season) in infobox of a player? These playsoffs works just like the one in MLS, and not all teams in league can enter this stage. We don't add MLS playoff stats of a player in his infobox, so logically we should do the same here? I think we should add them under 'other' section in career stats, and not in infobox. (Soccerway however put them under league apps, but they do the same for all playoffs including the ones in Spain & Uruguay!)

I am not sure if we have reached a consensus on this before. Or else, I'd like to know your opinions on this topic. Thanks in advance! Kokoeist (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. They should be added in the "other" section of the career stats, but not in the infobox. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @GiantSnowman:, @Nehme1499:, @Mattythewhite:, @RedPatchBoy: and @Struway2: to know their opinions, as they are usually the most active editors here. Kokoeist (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Play-off appearances are not considered part of the regular domestic league season and as such shouldn't be included in infobox statistics. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are 'other' for the stats table, and not included in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Should go in an 'Other' column with a note or a 'Playoffs' column if one exists, like how is done with MLS players for the MLS Cup Playoffs. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ben Davies (footballer, born 1995)

Could someone lend a hand at Ben Davies (footballer, born 1995)? DDP-Trooper1777 (talk · contribs) is insisting that Davies has completed his transfer to Liverpool but isn't providing a source to confirm this, and as far as I can see there isn't any confirmation from Liverpool or Preston yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed by Liverpool and updated with source in article. --SuperJew (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Club red links in infobox

If clubs do not have articles on the English Wikipedia, do we either link to the club article on another Wikipedia, make a red link, or just leave a simple text? Geschichte is reverting on Cerezo Haabo. From editing patterns I've seen, we usually link to other Wikipedias if a page exists, and after that, we just leave as blank text, we never red link. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If the club is notable (and I think a top division one would be), I think this is a valid redlink per WP:REDLINK. Number 57 14:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, redlinks should be used in preference to links to other language wikis, which display blue, making it looks like they exist. Or we can use WP:Interlanguage links, which display as redlinks with links to the foreign language page, and if the article is created, then it becomes a "normal" blue link. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should never use [[:it:Article name]], rather {{Interlanguage link|Article name|it}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If the page exists on en.wiki, link to it. If it doesn't exist on en.wiki but does on another wiki, link to it through {{Interlanguage link}}. If it doesn't exist on any wiki, and is notable (has played in the top-division, or generally passes GNG), red link to it. If it's not notable don't link. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk)

Sounds sensible. GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What if it is not notable on this wiki but there is already an article on another wiki because that wiki has different notability? IMO that means we link to the other wiki directly. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, through {{Interlanguage link|Article name|it}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This section explains why ill is preferred over hard linking. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft articles

I would like to point out that I have created Wikipedia pages on Matteo Anzolin and Matías Soulé. They are in draft form as they have never made their debut in professional football. Please move the pages to the mainspace when they make their professional football debut. Dr Salvus (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources for an international footballer with 34 caps?

Can anyone here take a look at Eric Omondi Ongao? This stub is basically only sourced to this entry at National-Football-Teams.com, which describes 34 international matches for the Kenya national football team.

There are a few old articles with similar claims (Bleacher Report and a Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC Press Release), but it's a bit odd that there is a dearth of higher quality sources for such claims. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this. Not usual to be lacking online sources for someone whose carer was 20 years ago, pre-mainstream internet. GiantSnowman 08:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NFT is very reliable in my opinion. Just use what NFT has. By the way, I'm pretty sure we include non FIFA matches too, so you should put them in the infobox as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, we do NOT include non-FIFA matches. GiantSnowman 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't, true. But NFT is inconsistent in what games are non-FIFA and what games are. They aren't a good indicator for that. RSSSF is more reliable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not "very", as they often make mistakes. Still, they wouldn't just create a hoax player out of nowhere. Worst case, NFT has underestimated his actual cap count (but not his existence). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not finding any pictures of him playing in a Kenya kit at a first glance search. I think this is a hoax. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See RSSSF, he played for Kenya at the 2000 CECAFA. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and assistance, everyone! By the way, is NFT generally across WP Football as a (somewhat) reliable source? — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: NFT is reliable, yes. However, if NFT say that a player has 10 official caps and 1 unofficial cap, it doesn't mean he has 10, or 11 caps. It may be that he has 25. NFT doesn't have full detailed information of all games. But still, NFT wouldn't just create a player out of nowhere, so all players available on NFT have existed and have played internationally. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I don't have any opinion on whether we should or should not include non-FIFA stats, but they are often included for players who have played for non-FIFA national teams, such as Ryan-Zico Black and Herdi Siamand. Should these be removed? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In those situations, no. GiantSnowman 17:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit of information about him as "Eric Omondi" in Kenyan sources but you need access to allafrica.com. Hack (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

College Stats

I know in the infobox, we include only league matches for the infobox, but was curious if it's the same for college stats (for Canadian/American college/university teams). Is it league matches only, or do playoff matches get included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoy (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would assume only league games for those too, though the footnote does say "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine it says "senior" to emphasize that we shouldn't put stats for the youth career. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

College isn't youth though. It's a separate section entirely and stats are easily verified for North America and most player profiles with them have stats recorded. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah what I'm trying to say is that the footnote is ambiguous, as it says that we should only put domestic league stats for senior club appearances. College isn't youth, but it isn't senior either. I am assuming that the footnote didn't take into account the college career, and just put the word "senior" to make sure that people don't put stats for youth competitions. Therefore, in my opinion, we should only put league stats for the college career (and maybe amend the footnote to just say "Club appearances...", instead of "Senior club appearances...") Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy and Nehme1499: Both of y'all have got to be more specific with "league matches" here. There's no such thing as "league matches" in American college soccer...there's conference and nonconference games, then there's the conference tournament, and then there's the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament (or the NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Championship or NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Championship). None of those distinctions matter, though, because all of the matches are treated as the same. To use JJ Williams as an example, take a look at the stats tab on his University of Kentucky profile. All four of those "types" of matches are included as the exact same.

Just from the quick bit of research I did, it seems like this is different in Canada, where there's a clear line between regular season and playoff matches...but in the United States, not so. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's true for the US. I posted this after doing an article on a player in Canada Nicholas Osorio, where it was league + playoffs - a lot more straightforward - I wasn't even thinking of the NCAA style. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep it straightforward - use whatever stats the college publishes on the player bio. GiantSnowman 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I gotcha. Yeah, I think GS put it much cleaner than my whole spiel, to just go with what the sources use. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I am against including college stats in a player's infobox altogether. I think it is fine to include in a career statistics section if easily verifiable but it is the American equivalent of amateur/youth soccer. We do not put Chelsea Academy stats from the PL2 and FA Youth Cup in Mason Mount or Tammy Abraham's infoboxes so I don't think we should make an exception for collegiate athletics in America. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotion honours

I have not seen this often, but I was wondering: do we include "promotion" honours? I know we don't include 2nd place finishes in the top tier, but do we include an honour for being promoted as a 2nd place team?
And do we include an honour for winning the promotion/relegation play-offs? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think promotion or winning the play-offs counts as an honour (I assume we're talking about clubs here). Number 57 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess in clubs too, but I meant more for a player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not honours for both. It's quite enough to develop the promotions/relegations in the club's history section, I think the same goes to players (definitely not in "honours"). MYS77 ^✉ 20:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Bury, Fulham, Derby, Crystal Palace Boreham Wood, West Brom, Cardiff City etc etc passim ad nauseam list promotions on their honours page. But on the other hand a minority of users don't like it. Difficult to say really.--EchetusXe 23:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, of course those clubs are going to list promotions on their own websites. It makes them look good. – PeeJay 23:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Norwich have listed being UEFA Cup participants, FA Cup semi-finalists and finishing third in the Premier League in their honours,[5] so I'm not sure we can consider clubs as reliable sources for what counts as honours... Number 57 00:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion shouldn't count as honours in my opinion, unless they win their respective leagues.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ortizesp.
Does this mean that in Joe Bryan, the EFL Championship play-offs honour should count? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Think about what your asking. Should an honour be placed in the honours section? Does a promotion honour count as an honour? I will never get my head around the mental gymnastics some people use to remove honours from the honours section.--EchetusXe 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryan played in the play-off final and the source in the article has an image of the medal ribbon around his neck. That is more than enough to justify the inclusion of the play-offs in the honours section. Promotion as a second-placed team can be included in the honours section if the player concerned receives a medal. The same would apply in England for EFL League Two where players receive medals for a third-place promotion. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Tough one as there is a physical trophy for the EFL Championship play-offs, League One, and so on. I do find it quite odd that we list that play-off win in player and club honours, i.e. Jack Grealish or Tim Ream, but don't seem to do the same for the players and club that is automatically promoted in second place and therefore had a better season. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

== Regional Italian Cups are notable? == In Italy there are regional cups that take place between 7th tier teams. There are sources needed to verify that the information is true, but I would like to know if it is notable and if pages about these competitions could be created on Wikipedia. Dr Salvus (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Darko Kovačević

Can somebody protect this page from vandalism. There is a user who puts fake stats in infobox for years now. Thanks -- 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:0:0:0:812 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox stats

Let's say Tim Template plays for Sample City FC from 2033 to 2035. In the first season, the number of league appearances he makes is recorded: he makes a total of 8 league appearances. In the second season, the number of appearances is unknown. In this scenario, would we make the club appearances for Tim Template 8 or would we leave it blank?
Secondly, for the club total goals & apps: when we know all the stats, of course we add it, but when there is one club for which the player stats are missing, do we still have a total in the infobox? (Of course this is for after retirement.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If we have partial data, we either add a + (so 8+) or just omit it. It depends on how much info is known. If we know 9 seasons out of 10, we should put the +. If we know 1 season out of 10, we should leave it blank. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But GS, I had put a + on Oladapo Afolayan and you said to remove due to being incomplete. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because stats for 50% of the seasons were missing... GiantSnowman 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I found partial stats for the missing season, but not complete. Should I add partial stats with a plus for the missing or is it better to just omit fully if not complete, I did the latter ? RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

On a club row, I'd advise either leaving it blank, or (probably better) include what we do know together with a note that tells the reader what's covered by the figure: which seasons, or which league divisions. Without an explanatory note, 8+ is just a random number. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My above was started before RPB's 16.23 post: in answer to that, I'd definitely omit partial stats for a single season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, and guys, what about the "total"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Same solution as Nehme1499 stated still applies. Especially for a player who played hundreds of professional games and then ended his career with a season or two at amateur level.--EchetusXe 18:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If we know that he played 243 games in 12 years, then played 2 other seasons without knowing how many caps he made, we should put 243+ in the total. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is what I did on Denis Bauda appropriate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to start adding Brazilian state league stats to infobox? I just went to update Gabriel Jesus's stats following his goal today for Manchester City and noticed that both his Brazilian Serie A and state league appearances and goals were included in his infobox during his time at Palmeiras rather than just Serie A. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Don't have the link, but I remember the state leagues were decided at one point recently to be allowed in the infobox and in a separate state league section in career stats table RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks for saying yep. Just one thing, I wasn't sure if you also meant that adding the note (a) is appropriate or not.
And one last thing, would it be ok to add the total for when several clubs are missing like Christian Zajaczkowski? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never put a note myself, but it definitely seems like a good idea :) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Zajaczkowski; sure, why not? At the end we know 14/18 seasons, which is pretty exhaustive. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Managerial statistics tables

In those stats tables, do we include only the games in which the manager was physically present on the bench, or do we include all team results since the date of official appointment regardless of who is actually on the bench during the match? For example, if the manager is appointed on 30 January 2021, but has to be quarantined for 10 days and therefore the assistant manager is in charge for 2-3 games, are those stats still included?

In sources, both soccerbase.com and footballdatabase.eu are using fully automated system so I dont know how reliable is that, i.e. all games since the date of appointment are automatically counted toward the manager, since they dont manually put managers in their match reports, only the players. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

All games. If we restricted it to "only the games in which the manager was physically present on the bench", would we also exclude any where the manager was serving a touchline ban? Or was ill with the flu? Or decided to go scout a player instead of attending a game (I remember a former Gillingham manager did this once but I forget which one and I doubt I could find a source to confirm it)? It would be too complicated to try and pick out who was "in charge" for every game and it would probably border on WP:OR anyway (because it would rely on an assumption about a manager's level of involvement - he could be absent on the day but still pick the team, outline the tactics, etc)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Well isn't that what we do with players? i.e. not have a cap for them if they were serving a ban / were ill / decided to go attend their child's birth instead of attending a game? Should we add a cap for a captain if he was involved in training and leadership during the build-up to the game but didn't feel well on the morning of the game so didn't play? --SuperJew (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chris - include all games for the manager as confirmed by sources. GiantSnowman 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate further on the example of captains (which has similarity to the manager position) - we have lists of captains and list them by matches captained (for examples Category:Lists of association football captains). So if a player is the captain of the team the past few years, has trained (and led training) with the team, flown to tournament X, played the first couple of games, discussed the tactics with manager, and generally involved in all the "behind-the-scenes", but then the third tournament he doesn't play due to injury, is there anyone who would argue we should still count the third match as a captain cap for him? --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore you can find sources for such things. For example: Klopp missed Liverpool's FA Cup replay against Shrewsbury Town ([6], [7]), Allardyce missed Everton's away trip to Cyprus in the 2017 Europa League ([8], [9]) and there are more. --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Players and managers are completely different kettles of fish here. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. GiantSnowman 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The statistics of both should be supported by sources. If we have a source (as per examples above) of manager not managing the team for a certain match, then it shouldn't be listed as a match he managed. We don't give a blanket for all matches in the period he managed. --SuperJew (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So to be clear – on Luka Elsner, the yesterday's Belgium Cup win can be included in the table per source, even though the guy basically havent even met his players and staff yet, as he was flown directly into the quarantine after entering the country on 31 January? Snowflake91 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just check out the managerial statistics of Steve Cotterill to see how not to do it. Excludes games he was in hospital but includes those he was directing from online but not at the game. Very much OR and not in line with the stats supported by Soccerbase.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That should be brought in-line with Soccerbase. GiantSnowman 12:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Crewe manager Dario Gradi - see Dario_Gradi#Managerial_statistics - was sidelined for about a month in 2003 having heart surgery. Soccerbase accounted for this temporary absence link. Paul W (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Which in that situation was the right thing to do. GiantSnowman 15:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: So you're claiming that matches which Cotterill wasn't at all involved in as he was very sick with COVID19 should be chalked up as him managing the team? Even though we have sources verifying the opposite? (BTW I think also the remote advice (two minute phone call) shouldn't be counted as a match he managed either, and the source also names the actual acting manager). --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Yes, I’m claiming just that. If Cotterill was the manager for those games, then the statistic for those games belong under his name and just as they are recorded on Soccerbase. I can recall West Ham games where Avram Grant was away for a game for a Jewish religious festival or where Slaven Bilić did not take charge for European games or where Big Sam had a heavy cold. The stat was always reported under their named and not a deputy for the game.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: But that's exactly the point - he wasn't the manager for those games, as is verified in the sources above (which are frankly more reliable than a stats site like Soccerbase or Soccerway). Also, these instances are rare enough that when they do happen, they are reported on and there is enough verifiable reliable sources to support with. --SuperJew (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I tend to side with those stat sites. A person is the manager of a club until they are not, regardless of days off for Covid, colds, religious festivals etc. To try and go against those stat sites which verify managerial stats, opens a whole can or worms. Do we really want a series of footnotes explaining individual managerial absences which go against the figures maintained by stat sites?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06: If footnotes are needed, then yes. If I want information about club matches during the period from when manager X was appointed until he left, I can look at the club's season pages. If I'm looking at the manager's page, I want information about what games he took charge of, and if there are games he didn't then I want to know why and in what circumstances. And as I mentioned above, due to these being exceptions they are actually going to have reports and news about it, and actually be more notable than the run-of-the-mill individual match reports. In general, Wikipedia is a collection of information from many sources, and our information should not be based of one source only. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think in Mr Elsner's case – he was formally appointed on Sunday but had gone straight into quarantine - that first match ought to belong to whoever was acting as caretaker, with a note to verify it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: The match shouldn't be included. Even Soccerway notes Vanderhaeghe as the coach. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit information from Soccerway, Vanderhaeghe was sacked on 31 January, and today became the manager of Cercle Brugge, he 101% wasnt the manager in yesterday's game. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: I see your point there. So basically fell to the same hole of blindly trusting stats sites ;) According to NieuwsBlad, Kortrijk was coached by Bart Meert. Bottom line, we should take info from stats sites with a pinch of salt, as it isn't 100% reliable. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

hln.be says Elsner will be in quarantine for "his" first 2 games and Meert will take the team for those. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet some of the early secretary-managers were absent from games quite often, but we'd never find sources to prove it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: You could also say about players that earlier years we won't have complete stats in sources..... --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that games should still be included in a manager's statistics even if they're serving a touchline ban, as they still contribute to the team's tactical plan and the coaching of the team in the build-up to the game. In the case of Dario Gradi missing a month, as mentioned above, or Sir Matt Busby missing the second half of the 1957-58 season following Munich, they're totally uninvolved with team preparation, so I would imagine that sources wouldn't count games played during those absences. That's the important bit, btw - we need sources, not just to add on a game every time we think a manager took charge of a game. If you don't have a source that lists a manager's win-draw-loss record, we shouldn't include it in the article, as it would be original research to count the matches ourselves. – PeeJay 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Okay, so regarding Luka Elsner, as said above, by your logic we shouldn't include the matches until he finishes quarantine (as he is not contributing to the tactical plan and build-up to the game and hasn't even met the players yet)? Also by this logic, the games played while Cotterill was hospitalized because of COVID shouldn't be counted since he didn't contribute tactical plans while lying ill and unable to communicate in the hospital? btw basic arithmetic isn't original research. --SuperJew (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: please WP:DROPTHESTICK, your conduct here is veering into WP:BADGERING. GiantSnowman 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This debate is active, and I am not forcing it's revival - DROPTHESTICK isn't relevant. And debating and classifying points is not badgering. --SuperJew (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's how I would do it if I were in charge of counting the games, but that's not the case here. Also, you're right that basic arithmetic isn't OR, but when you have to make qualitative assessments about a manager's level of involvement in each game, that's when it becomes a bit woolly. Obviously there's a point where stats organisations decide that a game shouldn't count towards a manager's totals, but we're not a stats organisation, we just have to report what they say. – PeeJay 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Us deciding who the "real" manager for a game is is completely OR. If a club announces a manager and says they are in charge, and RS report it as such, then why would we do otherwise? Spike 'em (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The exact point is that in the examples above the club announced that someone else is in charge (Meert in place of Elsner, etc.) and that is reported in RS. In the end there is a certain discrepancy here between several reliable sources on one side and other reliable sources (stats sites in these examples). What do we do in this case to decide between them? I do not think we should blindly go after the stats sites. --SuperJew (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't have much choice in the matter. You can't just decide to change the stats because you disagree with them. – PeeJay 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This season already Arteta, Rodgers, Moyes and Parker have not been present at Premier League games due to Covid issues. In the EFL there are many other instances of managerial Covid related absences. All of the games where the manager was isolating are included in their Soccerbase stats. I believe that is the way to go.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: I'm not arguing to change the stats because I disagree with them. I'm claiming to change what we list on Wikipedia due to other reliable sources which aren't the one stats site the table is based on. This is not a case that says the stats site is the only reliable source we have (with the other source being an unverifiable Tweet or Facebook post or whatever). Rather we have on one hand stats sites which are generally reliable, but AFAIK and as was stated here, use automated or semi-automated tools which can clash with reality and give a false picture, while on the other hand we have a reliable source which was written specifically for the specific match in question and gives a truer picture. --SuperJew (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. Spike 'em (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly think touchline bans and illness absence (inc COVID) should be ignored once they are in post, and I think that's the majority opinion if not universal. Elsner is a slightly different situation IMO, it's a question of whether he has officially started in the job or not. It's OR for one editor to make that decision off their own back, but there are probably sources that support both stances, so it's a matter of determining which is more accurate based on what they say (was the interim guy known to be taking instruction from the guy in quarantine etc). Same goes for other isolated incidents with strange circumstances, rather than a 'rule' to cover every possible scenario, there needs to be some examination of the evidence available. Crowsus (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

George Collins (footballer)

Might be a long shot, but does anyone know if the George Collins who managed Gillingham in 1919-20 and the George Collins who managed Darlington in the 1930s are definitely the same man (as the LMA believe)? And if so, what he was doing in the intervening 13 years......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say possibly, but no more than that. When a George Collins took over as manager of Darlington in 1933, he was reported as having "had charge of Darlington Reserves for the past 12 years". When he left them, a brief bio in the Hartlepool Mail has him "connected with the club for 32 years". He was on Newcastle's books, professional for at least one season but no first-team apps, before joining Darlington in 1904 and 3 years later joining Shildon, where he spent 4 years. Then it says "While working at the Darlington Forge Ltd he assisted in the formation of the Forge Albion Club, which after the war became the Darlington F.C."

Assuming we don't have to understand the 32 years connection as meaning he was thereabouts all the time for 32 years, there's a gap between early involvement with Forge Albion and running Darlington's reserves from c.1921 big enough for a season as Gillingham manager in 1919/20, but I can't find anything to either prove or disprove it being the same bloke. Don't suppose any of that helps, but... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Struway2: - thanks for your input -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus please on delayed competition in season articles

A date for the postponed 2020 Copa del Rey Final has now been set (3 April). I see that has been added to Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad's 2019–20 season articles, and just wanted to seek consensus about that being the 'correct' location before it's played and any team and player stats get added. I had a look at the participants in the latter stages of the 2019–20 Scottish Cup to see how that was being shown, and found Celtic and Aberdeen have the results and stats in their 2019–20 article, but Hearts and Hibs have them in 2020–21. I don't really care which is preferred, but obviously it should be consistent. An earlier discussion, in fact more than one, on the Scottish player stats in the bio articles went the way of 2019–20 with a note (I haven't actually got round to checking all of the players involved but I will try to do so this week). The club articles will be more straightforward as long as everyone is aware of the community decision on it (fortunately none of the teams involved have played in the current Scottish Cup yet, so all stats displayed there at present are for the previous season). Therefore, pinging @Jmorrison230582:, @Davezo33:, @Blethering Scot: and @Celticbhoy97: who I believe are the main contributors to each of the Scottish articles, and @SteveMc25: and @Sakiv: who heavily contribute to both Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad, to keep you in the loop. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not just put the final in both and write a one-sentence explanation above it? RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My thinking is that statistics that relate to the 2020/21 squad should be included in the 2020/21 article. I think it looks daft to list appearances by players who weren't signed until the 2020/21 season in the 2019/20 article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RedPatchBoy. It should be included in both articles with an explanation as to why the final stages of the 2019–20 competition were played in the 2020–21 season. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 2019–20 final of the competition should be included in the 2019–20 season pages only as it is part of that season, regardless whether players have gone or come in. Sociedad have already been eliminated from the 2020–21 Copa del Rey, therefore these stats are included in their 2020–21 season, yet they are in the final of the previous seasons cup. Just pointing out, Portsmouth and Salford have the same issue with the EFL Final, Inverness and Raith with the Challenge Cup Final as well. Davezo33 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to get further input on this. Maybe posting on transfer deadline evening wasn't the best idea, everyone had other Wiki matters to deal with. As Davezo33 has pointed out, other teams are affected by this (or will be when their final is played), therefore pinging @Lbarnett-bl:, @82.44.252.223:, @Cheesy McGee:, @Skyblueshaun: and @Zanoni: as the editors who appear to edit the articles for the teams involved in the postponed Scottish Challenge Cup and EFL Trophy finals, for your info and possibly more interest in the matter than others. As I've said, I don't particularly care which season is chosen as the 'main' one to record the player stats, but surely there can be a consistency between them, which so far the discussion has not provided. As different stats sites are recording these matches differently, on here it should clearly be noted which appearances relate to the delayed competition, as we have the tools to do so. Currently:

• 2019–20 Aberdeen F.C. season records all appearances up to and including the semi, has a general note on the delay but doesn't state which appearances/goals were made seven months after the others, 2020–21 Aberdeen F.C. season doesn't mention the delayed cup match at all;
• 2019–20 Celtic F.C. season records all appearances up to and including the final, has a general note on the delay but doesn't state which appearances/goals were made seven months after the others, 2020–21 Celtic F.C. season doesn't mention the delayed cup matches at all;
• 2019–20 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season's Scottish Cup appearances stop with the lockdown, the delayed matches are recorded in 2020–21 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season, but currently with no note whatsoever in the table to explain at a glance how the players have appeared in two matches when they are yet to play in the 2020–21 competition, and this will create confusion when the current cup run's matches are added unless it's made clear who played in the delayed matches;
• 2019–20 Hibernian F.C. season's Scottish Cup appearances stop with the lockdown, the delayed match is recorded in 2020–21 Hibernian F.C. season with a general note, but this could create confusion when the current cup run's matches are added unless it's made clear who played in the delayed match.

I would agree it's OK to include the match result box(es) in both seasons for info, again as long as the situation is clearly indicated. Obviously this is not a huge deal and fairly easily solved but I'd like to have something here to refer to when amending the tables, and don't want to do all the fiddly amendments only to have them changed because that's not how the usual editor wants to display it. Crowsus (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the approach in the Celtic article is better and have adopted it for the Hibs article now. My concern was about the player statistics, but showing the 2020/21 players separately in the table addresses this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Urgent: Block needed

Hi. WP:AIV is very slow. 176.59.35.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalising Vedat Muriqi. Can an admin @GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite:, …) please block them? They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Might be quicker to go to WP:ANI. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on:, leave it and stop edit-waring, I post to ANI then. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've written a report an AN/I. Wikipedia:Edit warring states: "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons;" Robby.is.on (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, but often, it feels like you're adding wood to the fire, playing the game the IP wants to play! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, but what's the alternative? Leaving the abuse in the article? Anyway, they're blocked now. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, yep, they tend to get bored quickly and either stop, or the more damage they do the quicker they get caught. Govvy (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no way I'd leave the abuse in. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This has finally been dealt with. Phew… Robby.is.on (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were fine to keep reverting here Robby.is.on. 3RR doesn't apply in cases of obvious vandalism, and especially BLP violations, which this clearly was. It's a shame it couldn't have been dealt with quicker. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @Amakuru:. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)