Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124

Archive 120

←

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

→

Archive 130

Should Category:Foolian u-20 international footballers categories be placed in Category:Foolian international footballers or Category:Foolian youth international footballers?

Lately I started puting categories such as Category:Ecuador under-20 international footballers in categories such as Category:Ecuador youth international footballers rather than Category:Ecuador international footballers because I thought the former was more specific than the latter. However after looking around I found that almost none of the u-20, u-21, or u-23 categories are placed in the youth internatonal categories and are almost always placed in the international footballers categories. I wanted to come here to clear up the confusion before I make anymore edits regarding this issue Inter&anthro (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They should be a subcat of 'international footballers' IMHO. GiantSnowman 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In the examples given, the youth cat is a sub-cat of international, so I can't see why the actual age groups shouldn't be in there (i.e. the youth cat), or does "youth international" have a more restrictive meaning (and if so, up to which age group)? Spike 'em (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Each country should have 'youth' (for U17/U19 etc.), 'U20/U21' (depending on confederation), 'U23' (for Olympics etc.) and 'international' (for senior). GiantSnowman 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that should probably be made clear then, as I tried looking into things a bit and found Category:Brazil youth international footballers says This category is for footballers who have appeared for either the Brazil under-17 national team or the Brazil under-20 national team which implies the U20 cat should be a sub-cat of there, rather than the main international one. Spike 'em (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And Category:Association football players by youth national team contains Category:Association football players by under-21 national team and Category:Association football players by under-23 national team, so the whole structure could do with a tidy-up. Spike 'em (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em:  Done GiantSnowman 10:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look! Spike 'em (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Windward Islands Tournament

The article 2019 Windward Islands Tournament has been nominated for deletion. Some want it kept, others want it removed. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Windward Islands Tournament. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Quinn

Does anybody have a year of birth for Peter Quinn (forward), so we can disambiguate from Peter Quinn (footballer) and Peter Quinn (Gaelic footballer)? GiantSnowman 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source for birthplace?

Is http://www.just-football.com/2018/11/mason-greenwood-the-manchester-united-wonderkid-scoring-goals-for-fun/ a reliable source for a footballers' birthplace? It cites Wibsey in Bradford, England as Mason Greenwood's birthplace. The article had that as Greenwood's birthplace, but used the Daily Mail as a source. I removed the birthplace and DM source and replaced it with a Manchester Evening News source, which unfortunately only cites England as a birthplace. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This confirms he was born in Bradford, whilst this says he was raised in Wibsey. I imagine that is correct and that the source you presented is poor journalism which has merged/confused the two. I suspect he was likely born at Bradford Royal Infirmary like most other Bradfordians (I think St Luke's has scrapped their maternity unit)... GiantSnowman 18:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Popular pages

Can I request this list be extended to the top 1000 pages? There are other WikiProject popular pages list with 1,000 but this has only 500. Gooner2004 (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

subcatting footballer to subdivision of countries

Is that really need such cat Footballers from Sardinia. How about cats such as Footballers from Lancashire, Footballers from Greater Manchester??? Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say no to them, though it's very likely that people won't remember to put them on players. For example, footballers from Sardinia has about 70 players (while the real number of players from Sardinia on Wikipedia is at least 10 times that). Nehme1499 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a non-diffusing sub-cat ie players remain in both Category:English footballers and Category:Footballers from Bradford. Whether they Arte needed is another matter, especially given the BLP/sourcing issues involved. GiantSnowman 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I highly doubt there are 700 Sardinian players on Wikipedia because I went through all possible existing categories of Sardinian people, as well as players at local clubs, when creating the category. If there are more, they have been created with very poor categorisation in the first place making it impossible to discern their origins from the categories on their article which is the whole point in having them. Going through all the Sardinian people took some time, I'm certainly not going to go through all 5000+ Italian footballers to track down a couple because someone else hasn't done a better job. And if there is no stated birthplace anywhere to add a category, fair enough but then that's again an issue with the quantity of info in the article. I've only created a couple of categories for well known Western European islands with a high degree of autonomy as it might be of interest to someone to know which players were 'from' those distinct places — as has been discussed before, that term is a bit ambiguous anyway. Notwithstanding OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I definitely feel somewhere like Sardinia has as much justification for such a Category as every London borough, every German Land (and some cities) and every Spanish autonomous community (and some cities), none of which involved any input from me. And BLP is of course a consideration, but the category only relects the place of birth/upbringing as listed on the article, so if that's ropey it should be getting removed altogether rather than being ignored for categorisation. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that birthplace =/= being 'from' somewhere. Many Welsh footballers, for example, were born in Chester as that is the nearest maternity hospital. GiantSnowman 11:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's very true, in terms of my own amendments I am pretty confident that they would all be legitimate, any doubtful ones got skipped. Balotelli for Sicily is one that could be argued either way as he left at a young age, but he did already have the Sportspeople from Sicily cat. He was brought up in Lombardy so added the Sportspeople cat from there which was absent, I feel more than one is appropriate in these situations to avoid having to choose between them. Crowsus (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem was wide spread that almost every biographical article was put in the "People from foo" cat due to POB. But it is trivial sorting. The person may be not growing up there, or did not have notable mention in the news article. Only few exception that have notable news reporting as foo native, such as Wayne Rooney or some Catalan or Basque. Even they are non-diffuse subcat of "foo (sovereign nation or the member state of FIFA) footballers", it is not that good in purpose. May be next time Lombard footballers??? But i doubt there is any notable books about that subject, which violate Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state)". At least Catalan or Basque have their own representative team. I also doubt Businessman from Chinese province or scientist by the states of US, have any real meaning. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation in suffix for club names

Hi, is there any standard regarding the punctuation in club names? Are both "Al Ahed FC" and "Al Ahed F.C." accepted as long as all Lebanese teams have the same format? Or do the all have to have punctuation? Nehme1499 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It varies from country to country, the important thing is consistency in the country. GiantSnowman 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't we just get rid of the full stops across the board? – PeeJay 10:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally would, but it seems that punctuation is the most prevalent suffix in Wikipedia and it would take ages to move everything. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: ok, but to be honest I have never seen A.C. Milan or Juventus F.C. outside of wikipedia. Even on the official website of Juventus and Milan it says "FC" and "AC", without punctuation. Even in articles I don't recall seeing F.C., A.C., S.C. ecc...

My question is: is there a particular reason for why, for example in Italy, we use the punctiation? Or is the choice just arbitrary? Nehme1499 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This cropped up a few years back with a big debate over whether each team should mention "football club" and / or F.C. and in what format. It's be 8 or more years ago. Koncorde (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In Registro Imprese (company registry) the Italian clubs either have dot or use full name in their legal name. The naming convention was a thing that was lay down a decade ago for individual countries and it need new consensus to remove dots from all countries or just one country. So far only Portugal was the only one that breaking the convention for outlier FC Porto and Sporting CP existed, on top of S.L. Benfica and S.C. Braga. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Women's football by year

Would it be okay to create such articles, like 2019 in women's association football? The women's circuit is important enough of its own and the existing articles, like 2018 in association football, are already huge. The women's football parts are somewhat underdeveloped and I think that rather than making these articles even lengthier breaking them into two would make easier checking either the men's or women's annual information. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that in older articles such as 1989 in association football and 1999 in association football the Events section was used for news like in the current general articles (e.g. 2019), but in more recent ones like 2009 in association football is used for national team competitions' results and there's a News section which has been increasingly abandoned. Isn't the former criteria better? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pakhtakorienne: I'm not sure if a WP:SPLIT is necessary or not. There are others here who could judge that better. Anyways, I've worked a bit to improve 2019 in women's association football reference-wise, but it still needs IMO a lot of work reference-wise (as does 2018 in association football too) and also I would make the format similar to 2019 in association football. If a split is found to be the way to go, we should get rid of the women's sections in the 2019 in association football page and rename it 2019 in men's association football. --SuperJew (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A question

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. When i view the 2019 Chinese Super League page, i couldn't help but notice that Hhkohh made four edits from 13:27 to 13:30 which look like live updates to me. So i am wondering that whether it is allowed to make live updates or not. Thank you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.64.18.145 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No live update. Sorry. I will be careful next time. Hhkohh (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No live updates thank you. You were told about same matter on 9 April and wrote then that you would be more careful. RossRSmith (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

But I try to find flash version in order to let data fresh. I have no time to watch video for now Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic: By the way, is I the IP 124.64.18.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a sock of 2408:8207:C43:C9F0:282A:7798:E0DF:BCE9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I remembered they have asked the same questions recently. Both IPs are in Beijing, China. Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic maybe sock of a user or WP:SPA? Hhkohh (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should talk about live updating from you again Hhkohh (talk · contribs). You were told last time and it's disruptive doing it again while knowing better... Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorting clubs issue

Hi,

Wanted to bring over a discussion we were having over at Talk:A-League transfers for 2019–20 season which I think needs more discussion from more people. The issue relates to sorting when a name of a team doesn't start with the same letter as the parent club. For example that started the discussion: "Jong Ajax". I claimed that it should be sorted under "Ajax" since that is the name of the parent club and the point of interest to sorting (much as "the" is ignored during sorting or club prefixes in cases like SD Eibar or RCD Espanyol) and that otherwise all of the Dutch youth teams would be sorted together, while counter claim said the sorting shouldn’t reflect anything other than the name of the club which appears in the column. If it begins with J, it should sort to J.

Pinging users involved in the discussion: @Macosal, Simione001, J man708, and SportingFlyer:

--SuperJew (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Should sort by common name. Milan or AC Milan is the common name is another issue. Odd to sort by full name. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 08:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree but unfortunately the question has been put misleadingly. The common name here is Jong Ajax and that should be reflected in the sorting. Jong Ajax is distinct from Ajax, unlike the other examples given. That is how they are referred to. We shouldn’t sort them to Ajax just because they are Ajax’s youth team. ‘Jong’ is he first word of the teams common name. Macosal (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Macosal: The question was not put misleadingly. Please don't put words in my mouth - I didn't even mention "common name". You claim Jong Ajax is distinct from Ajax. In my opinion (and seems this way from the lede of the page which says Jong Ajax, also referred to as Ajax II or Ajax 2 is a Dutch association football team, the reserve team of Ajax) Jong Ajax is part of Ajax. You yourself wrote they are Ajax's youth team. --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In specific. Should not use Jong Ajax as the club they came from. they came from AFC Ajax (and not AFC Ajax N.V.). It is odd to substitute the football "club " to the specific ladder youth team of a club. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The transfer is from the club, not the team. I'll repeat what I wrote on the other talk page.

Sorting should be determined by the reason for the sorting, which is to arrange things in a logical and easily navigatable order. Alphbetisation is a means, not an end in itself. If I had a long list of teams I would want them grouped by club, not by the vagueries of the names used for various teams run by the club. Jong Ajax is a rebranding of the Ajax reserve team and is part of the same football club, so I would sort on Ajax. In the case of this article it makes little difference as it involves a single player. More importantly, I think the club should be listed as Ajax as I assume the player is contracted to the club rather than the team.   Jts1882 | talk  09:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think @Jts1882: articulated well that the question may actually be whether ‘Ajax’ should be all that is listed. If not, I fail to see how it is useful or helpful to sort a club whose name on official competition tables etc is ‘Jong Ajax’ to anything other than the letter ‘J’. Macosal (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• First, this is a WP:FORUMSHOP from the talk page, which is incredibly frustrating, and what consensus existed on the talk page was that the sort should be J, as the "Jong Ajax" is the common name for the reserve team. I'm fine with a consensus that the player transferred from Ajax instead of Jong Ajax if that's what's decided here, but Ajax sorted as A or Jong Ajax sorted as J should be the two options for sorting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm sorry but this not "forum-shopping". You yourself expanded the question out of the A-League (I disagree with you, as does Tweede Divisie#2018-19 Teams), and therefore it makes sense that the question receives attention from a wider football-related forum. --SuperJew (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expand the question, you raised exactly the same discussion on a different forum after you failed to get anyone to agree with you (until you posted here) and yet you changed the sort order anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what then do you call bringing examples out of the scope in question? --SuperJew (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you can make these claims with a straight face SJ... You raised it on that talk page, nobody agreed with you, you tried to make the change by stealth anyway, I reverted you, you brought it here. Don’t pretend this is because the discussion is relevant to other pages you have never sought to edit previously... Macosal (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're unhappy that not everyone agrees on your take of the issue, so you're turning to personal attacks instead of discussing the issue itself. Or if you want to talk about the issue, please tell us how the sorting of Dutch youth teams is relevant only to the A-League and not to the whole of WP:FOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to call out a blatant violation of WP policy where it occurs. Macosal (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the actual question and focusing on bureaucratic stuff around it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made my views clear both above and in the original conversation (which you also started). The fact you consider breaching WP:FORUMSHOP to be "bureaucratic" is concerning, given you often seem to be content to disregard rules / policies when it suits you. Macosal (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, getting more opinions from a broader forum is fine, especially when the original discussion is on a talk-page of a hardly-viewed ("Fewer than 30 watchers") page which is about transfers of a future season of a not exactly major league and there are 5 commenters there (2 of which I pinged as regular editors of the project and 2 who are the main editors of the page). --SuperJew (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting more opinions is fine, but doing it after that discussion clearly did not concur with your views, and after you tried to go ahead and make that change for a third or fourth time (for reasons unexplained) and got reverted is textbook forumshopping. Macosal (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be sorted under "Ajax". Kante4 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That is the name of the club who hold his contract. If the player had played for the senior club, we wouldn't have listing a transfer from Jong Ajax to AFC Ajax in the player's article.   Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Serie A season pages

• 2016–17 Serie A
• 2017–18 Serie A
• 2018–19 Serie A

The map is overlapping stadium and location tables on screen sizes 1440 x 900 or lower and I am not sure how to adjust it to fix. Maybe someone can sort it out. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Displaying fine on my phone in both mobile and desktop format. Will check on my PC when I get chance. Koncorde (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I get the same problem by resizing my browser window. There was a similar issue with the current Premier League article, where the infobox, a table and the map were colliding in a similar fashion. Someone sorted it there by adding a {{clear}} at the top of one of the sections, but doing it above the tables in the first article above leaves a large amount of whitespace which seems just as bad. Spike 'em (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact it was you who discovered it!!!! Spike 'em (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving the code for the map to be after the table sorts the overlapping, but leaves the map level with the Personnel and Kits section rather than the Stadiums and Locations. The main issue seems to be that the infobox is so long that it extends too far into the body of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Displaying fine on my desktop in Firefox. The table and map move appropriately, with no overlap, when I change the screen size. However, I get the overlap in Chrome. An alternative workaround to using {{clear}} is to move the "Stadiums and locations" header below the map, although the alignment with the table is then wrong.   Jts1882 | talk  12:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can eliminate the overlap in Chrome by making the infobox and map the same width. If |pixels=400 is added to the infobox it enlarges the image and widens the infobox to match the map width. Alternatively |pixels=350 in the infobox and |pixels=350 in template {{Location map+}} seems to prevent the overlap.   Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That works for the first article, but the other 2 don't have an image to enlarge, so has no obvious effect. Spike 'em (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah. It would be useful if the infobox had a width parameter. The first column is unpleasingly narrow by default and it seems adding an image shouldn't be the only way of controlling width.   Jts1882 | talk  15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is too narrow and too long on these pages. Spike 'em (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, same problems still exist in Safari browser, can replicate the same problem in Chrome still. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought this might be due to a peculiar aspect of the map, but it seems the problem can be created with other div elements. Very surprising for software as stable as the wikimedia stuff. I have payed around with some addition div elements and found something that fixes the problem for me in Chrome. Govvy, can you check 2016–17 Serie A to see if it fixes the problem for you.   Jts1882 | talk  08:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: na, sorry, don't see any improvement. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised. I had to tweak it to get it to work for me on Chrome and I don't see why it should fix the problem. Or why the problem is there in the first place for that matter.   Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I was looking at 2015–16 Serie A and I think what was said above about the info box, maybe if the events section was expanded to bring down the other section below the info box then it might stop this overlap. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

SVG map for season articles

Hi, does anyone here know how to create an SVG map to be inserted in league season articles (such as here)? For example, I would like a map of Greater Beirut with not only the city of Beirut itself but with also the suburbs as many "Beirut" teams are actually based in the suburbs. However, such a map does not exist and I don't know how to make one. If anyone could help me out I would appreciate it! Nehme1499 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Nehme1499, you might find greater assistance by leaving a request at a map workshop, such as c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop and Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted the request there. We'll see if they will answer. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Label

. Would something like that on the right help? You can use {{football map}} to create custom interactive maps or could until recently. Unfortunately they don't seem to be working consistently any more.   Jts1882 | talk  09:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried working with the template but I'm unable to understand how it works. I'll see if I can figure it out! Nehme1499 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The documentation, such as it is, is at Module:Football map.

In its basic form each stadium needs to be entered as a valid wikipedia page for the stadium (or football club). This page is then used to pick up the wikidata item from where the coodinates and some other information (image, capacity, club using the ground) are gathered. The latter are only seen in interactive versions, which seem to have been disabled (but see London stadia or {{Football map/List of football stadiums in England}}). If wikidata can't supply the cordinates these can be added using template parameters. The map I created for Beirut has other stadia elsewhere in Lebanon, which can be seen if zoomed out (as now). You can see the interactive behaviour in the editor preview.

I can help if you have some specific requests.   Jts1882 | talk  13:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese seasonal pages (teams)

I bring you that most of the Japanese teams pages for a particular season seems to be in a list sort of state. Now when I think of them, they do seem that it sort of feels like a draft. As some examples here they are:

• 2014 Vissel Kobe season
• 2013 Giravanz Kitakyushu season
• 2013 Yokohama F. Marinos season
• 2016 Cerezo Osaka season
• 2016 Kamatamare Sanuki season

All of these are created by the user Gonta-Kun who seems to mostly focus on Japanese football. Now I don't have a problem with these seasonal things but when they are basic like these examples then it really makes you wonder why. Matt294069 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps move to draft space until they are ready Hhkohh (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: That is what I thought as it seems to be more suitable for those then what we currently have. I will start doing that right now. Matt294069 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Format of List of association football families

Would like to point here to discussion started on the talk page (as that page doesn't seem to have many watchers or commenters). The page is rather large and hard to upkeep, and there was a suggestion to split, with a discussion started to ask how to split it. I believe more input would be helpful :) --SuperJew (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My first thought was the Milburn family (including Charltons) but only the Charltons are listed in the English list. There is no mention of Jackie, John, George, James or Stan Milburn (see here).   Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I made the change here (hope it's okay), but this is a bit off topic to the discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the off-topic (it was) but I couldn't resist a comment on what is probably the most famous footballing family in England, possibly anywhere. On the topic, I think breaking off country subarticles when they are big enough to justify themselves like the England one is the way to go. Major footballing countries can support articles. A breakdown to continents or confederations is more artificial.   Jts1882 | talk  19:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As an alternative, I'd float the idea of limiting it to families where 3+ people meet the relevant criteria (instead of the current 2). Would make upkeep easier and probably better reflect notability in the broader scheme of things. Macosal (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I know it's sourced, I'm not convinced the entire list isn't WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia is a synthesis and could be considered original research. Editors decide what pieces of information (phrases, sentences, paragraphs) to include or exclude. The Wikipedia requirement is for each piece of information to be sourced and not a synthesis of several separate sources.

A higher threshold for inclusion is a good idea, although particlularly notable brothers or father-son combinations should still be allowed.   Jts1882 | talk  06:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support a higher threshold for inclusion. It would cut it by a lot and not sure if that would be enough to be worth a page. Also, as it is, certain countries have a higher amount included (ahem England ;) ) for a variety of reasons, one of them being the easier access of sources. This cut-off I think would tip the balance even more. Also, how would one judge particlularly [sic] notable brothers or father-son combinations? What is big enough and Major footballing countries? --SuperJew (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think these discussions should take place on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Aye, it should. ClubOranje^T 12:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall table in club seasons

What do we think about tables like this? I remember seeing these tables used a couple years back, but without the stats, which I think there was consensus to remove because they duplicated info in the infobox. However, I suppose that this table also including the stats per competition might bring some interesting info to the season articles, yes? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point in it. A lot of it is unnecessary duplication of info. I mean really, what actual relevance do the dates of the first and last matches hold? In a knockout competition, no one records WDL records. It's pointless. – PeeJay 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tottenham former players

I was wondering if people can help me, I've been trying to find profiles or any information for these players that played for Spurs in the 1950-51 season. Do we have articles for them?

• L D Bennett
• H A Clarke
• S B McClellan
• P Murphy
• D E Uphill

Govvy (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Les Bennett
• Harry Clarke (footballer, born 1923)
• Peter Murphy (footballer, born 1922) both appeared in the charity shield [1]
• the three above players participated in the charity shield [2]
• Sid McClellan
• Dennis Uphill SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

According to Barry Hugman's book, here goes:

• Leslie Donald "Les" Bennett (10 January 1918 – 29 April 1999) was an inside forward who signed for Tottenham as a Junior in May 1939 and scored 104 goals in 272 appearances between 1946 and 1954. He moved to West Ham in December 1954, scoring 3 goals in 26 appearances. He was born and died in Wood Green, London.
• Henry Alfred "Harry" Clarke (23 February 1923 – 16 April 2000) was a centre-half who signed for Tottenham from Lovells Athletic in March 1949. He scored four goals in 295 appearances before leaving the club at the end of the 1956–57 season. He played once for England and once for England B. He was born in Woodford and died in Havering.
• Sidney Benjamin "Sid" McClellan (11 June 1925 – 15 December 2000) played as both an inside and outside forward and joined Tottenham from Chelmsford City in August 1949. He made his debut during the 1950–51 season and scored 29 goals in 68 appearances before leaving for Portsmouth in November 1956. He played there for two seasons, scoring nine goals in 37 games. He returned to London in July 1958, signing for Leyton Orient, for whom he scored four goals in 12 appearances in his final season in the Football League.
• Peter Murphy (7 March 1922 – 7 April 1975) was an inside forward who entered the Football League with Coventry City, signing from non-league Dunlop in May 1946. He scored 37 goals in 115 appearances for Coventry before leaving for Tottenham in June 1950. In a season and a half with Spurs, he scored 14 goals in 38 appearances. He signed for Birmingham City in January 1952, scoring 107 goals in 245 appearances up to the end of the 1959–60 season. He was born in Hartlepool and died in Coventry.
• Edward Dennis Herbert Uphill (11 August 1931 – 7 February 2007), known as Dennis Uphill, was an inside forward. He joined Tottenham from Peasedown Miners Welfare in September 1949. He made his debut the following season and scored two goals in six appearances before leaving for Reading in February 1953. He played for Reading until October 1955, scoring 42 goals in 92 games before signing for Coventry City, where he spent another two seasons, scoring 16 goals in 49 games. After that, he moved to Mansfield Town in March 1957, scoring 38 goals in 83 appearances, then Watford in June 1959. He scored 30 goals in 51 appearances there, before moving to Crystal Palace in October 1960, scoring 17 goals in 63 appearances by the end of the 1962–63 season. He was born in Bath and died in Watford.

Hope that helps. – PeeJay 22:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers guys, that was very helpful, couldn't find those pages yesterday, It might of helped me if they were on a disambiguation pages. Just added Les Bennett to Bennett (name) which I looked at yesterday. Thanks again, Govvy (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You might find that looking through Category:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players far more useful than trying to find players on surname disambiguation pages (which aren't usually updated)... GiantSnowman 09:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

heh, cheers GS, didn't even think about using the cat, o well, have to remember for next time. Yesterday when searching I didn't think there were even articles for them. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Billy McNeill

Just to let editors know if any want to help that the article was put forward for RD-ITN. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Three Rock Rovers

I'm looking for some help with the first kit at Three Rock Rovers Hockey Club. Brown and blue shirt halves should be the other way around. Plus the blue half should be sky blue. I know it's not football, but I think someone here could help. Djln Djln (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Djln: Just updated it, is that the correct looking top half? SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Cheers @SportingFlyer: thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Just adjusted arm colours. Now correct. Thanks again Djln Djln (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kakhi Asatiani

Are we sure that scan of the sticker doesn't breach copyright? Govvy (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be suspicious if it was out of copyright. The claim of "Public Domain" is questionable. Koncorde (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Loan to first team or on the first team roster after transfer window?

I've seen several edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Schalke_04&curid=410348&diff=893723517&oldid=893720195 A reserve team play is called-up to the first team and someone lists that player on the roster of the first team because of it even though the club doesn't list them on the roster. Sure, clubs are notoriously slow in updating their websites, but is an appearance enough to be listed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Walter Görlitz - I reckon the "current squad/senior squad/first-team list" (however it's called) should include only players contracted to senior contracts for the first-team (and the squad template too). Reserves players who played a handful of games over a season without being contract-promoted can appear in a stats table on the club's page for the season. --SuperJew (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @S.A. Julio: who made the edit in question. FWIW I see no problems at all with including youth/reserve players who make the step-up later in the season in 'first team squad lists'. GiantSnowman 11:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with SuperJew. If a club doesn't include a player in their first-team squad list on their website, we shouldn't do so here. A player may be called up for a single match for any number of reasons without necessarily having to be a full-time member of the first team. Until the club considers them part of the first team, and the only way we would have of knowing that is if they run a news article saying "Player X has started training with the first team" or they include Player X in the squad list on their website, we shouldn't promote them ourselves. – PeeJay 12:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, agreed, Doesn't actually need a pro contract, but either a news article, or a squad listing in RS. Per Ben Waine who was called into squad but not on pro contract, although now also has squad listing on club site ClubOranje^T 13:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people here "agreeing" with one another but they're not. Do you want players to be in a first-team squad somewhere (club or other media?), or on 'senior' contract, or what? GiantSnowman 13:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Add them when they are listed on the website. Kante4 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

But what about clubs that don't have (or don't update) their website often enough? I am thinking of eg Hamilton Accies whose web manager is non-existent... GiantSnowman 14:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should include those players in the first team squad, most clubs list their first team squad on their website and we should match that. If a youth player who has played for the first team is listed in a reserve team squad, he can stay there. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, what about clubs who don't have a website, or don't update it enough? GiantSnowman 15:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It goes against WP:V to promote a player where there is no source to match. Clubs may have their own interpretations of what "first-team squad" means. In some cases (a player is playing every game) it may be obvious, but for us to impose a rule where it is less clear seems to be WP:SYNTH. Spike 'em (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue here that people are ignoring is that there are reliable sources to verify the information - Soccerway/BBC etc match reports. The question here is 'should a player who is part of a first-team match squad be included'? I say yes. GiantSnowman 16:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst they are playing for the first-team they are clearly in the first team squad, but for how long after they appear should they stay there? Spike 'em (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Clubs with injury problems sometimes call up youth players for the bench with no expectation of playing them (except in an emergency). I wouldn't include such players at least until they actually make an appearance. Even then if they return to the youth team I'm not sure we should include them as first team squad players. On the other hand, making an appearance or making the bench are easily verifiable pieces of information, the which contract status isn't. Relying on what clubs say or list on websites is also an issue as different clubs use different criteria and we need to use the same criteria. If we want a clear set of criteria it probably has to be playing or squad appearances. Yes, I realise I seem to have reversed my position.   Jts1882 | talk  17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If a player has appeared competitively for the club's first team (which is verifiable), then they should be included in the squad list. Relying entirely on club website squad lists is problematic, I've seen some which are updated in hours and some which are far out of date. Not all clubs have season articles or reserve/youth team articles/squad lists to include players at. Also, I'm sure there are readers which come to Wikipedia for information on first team debutants, it would be expected to find these players in the squad list of the club's article. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep. And to answer @Spike 'em:'s question, I have always left them there until the start of a new season, when the club announces squad list/club numbers etc. GiantSnowman 18:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

From earlier, if a football club hasn't got a website then I don't think that player would pass the qualifiers! It's not hard to match up players to teams, I really don't know what people are worried about. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, those reports say the player played a game. They do NOT say they have been promoted to the first team squad. Fails WP:V for adding them to the squad, as Spike'em said. After they played the game they could be kicked out of the squad. It's not like once you are in you are in for life. Provide a source or it could be challenged. If it is challenged you will have to provide a source, one that qualifies as WP:RS and states they are a member of the squad. We are building an encyclopaedia, not a sports magazine. ClubOranje^T 09:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it shows they are part of the first-team squad. A reader coming to read about an exciting youth player who has broken through to the first-team and not finding them listed will be very confused. GiantSnowman 09:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The first team / reserve team roster is irrelevant, the player is signed to the team and is a player of that team. It therefore goes without saying that if they are called up from the reserves to play then they should be on the squad list.

Our approach on Wikipedia was purely to avoid massive lists of players who are not given squad numbers, and are unlikely to be called up and / or make appearances (which in some cases would take us into the 60 to 90 player range).

However, once a player has a squad number, appears in a match day squad (as sub or player), or is registered for a senior competition etc then he is by all expectations a "first team player" who just happens to still be in the reserve squad on the website still. The reliable source in this case becomes the fact that he is appearing in actual matches.

If we are reliant on a primary source like a club website, then per GiantSnowmans concerns, we are then beholden to one set of "facts" which are not being reflected by other significant reliable sources (such as their own matchday programme, BBC, Sky, ESPN etc). Our use of the website is one of convenience for basic facts, but it should not be the sole basis of everything. Koncorde (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure WP:OR says something like you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Can't see any updates to indicate you can take any snippet of information and pretend it supports your own interpretation. I also don't see anywhere that says we need to add our own stuff so people don't get very confused. In fact, I see that people will get more confused when they find random unverified information in an encyclopaedia ClubOranje^T 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The 'first team' on Bradford City's programmes is often more up-to-date than their website. Both are RS which can V the squad. Which do we use? GiantSnowman 10:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with using offline sources, so which ever has been most recently updated. Either is better than using a wiki-convention of appearance -> end of season. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But the programme includes all players with a squad number (as that is what they deem to be first-teamers), including some youngsters who have never played. Using the logic of many here, how many appearances before those players are deemed 'first-teamers'? GiantSnowman 10:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if the source is offline or not, the important fact is verification, and if we can verify that the player has been in the first team squad and made appearances / registered for competitions etc then they can be listed in the first team squad regardless of what it might say on an official website. A club website does not have precedence. It can be a very useful default listing, and when it comes to player numbers in any given season or basic appearance information it can have some data that we might use, however it is also liable to run into several issues.

1. It is not an encyclopedia, not designed for use as a reliable source that can be referred to historically, and retains no year in year value in most cases. The data is often transient, whereas other reliable sources (such as appearances in matches) is reliable factual data.

2. One clubs definition of first team may be different to another team. This leads to inconsistency between First Team / Reserve / Academy / Youth / U23 where players technically may be on multiple squad lists depending on their role at the team. This inconsistency is liable to cause confusion.

3. It is not synthesis or OR to use other reliable sources. First team appearances = first team. If he happens to go back to the reserves for the rest of the season, and the next, it's irrelevant. People will expect to be able to come to an article about the team and see a "current squad" list that includes all players that are currently likely to play, or have played, regardless of their squad status. Koncorde (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a youth/reserves player playing in a match, even if he has a squad number for that match, doesn't necessarily mean that that number is his squad number. At least in the A-League, I know that youth players who are temporarily called-up for a single match when they are needed (due to injuries/players away on international duty/etc.) are given a number for that match, but later on in the season a different youth player might be called-up for a single match and wear the same number. --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Not in the English leagues (or any other that I know of for that matter) where a player has a number for the whole season. GiantSnowman 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My point is that playing a single match due to lack of senior player depth does not a senior player make. --SuperJew (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Senior player and first team squad member are not the same. Appearing in the squad or on the field suggests membership of the latter, but says nothing about the contractial or other hierarchical arrangements within the club.   Jts1882 | talk  19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is not an argument for excluding players from the squad. It suggests that squad numbers may not be absolute and there should be a way of indicating that (a footnote?).   Jts1882 | talk  19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A youth player playing once (usually also for only a 5-minute cameo, but that's less relevant) due to injuries and lack of squad depth, does not make them a squaddie. --SuperJew (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

By that logic; the third choice keeper who is on the books but is actually a 43 year old coach never expected to play any minutes, he is "First Team" tho, amirite?

It doesn't matter. Realistically there is absolutely no reason we do not list every player signed on the books of the club other than as a matter of space, and often a lack of veritable supporting information (and more recently the creation of specific reserve team competitions).

Our choice to only show the "first team" /"Senior" (or whatever other definition we wish to think up) and to use the club websites to identify those players is an editorial one, and it doesn't mean that it is without errors, or does not suit every situation. The same logic is applied by ESPN, BBC, Sly etc with their data, and it is no less reliable a source.

Until relatively recently, the sole source of footballing information was match reports and programmes. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But you hit the difference on the head Koncorde = the third-choice keeper is on the books - he has a senior first team contract. --SuperJew (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Which might be relevant if contract status was a factor in the squad list. It isn't. The squad list is made up of those who have, will make, or are regularly referred to within the first team capacity. Their contracts are irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SuperJew: you are incorrect about A-League numbers. Once a player wears a number or is on the bench in a league game, that number is theirs for the season. Strongly agree with GiantSnowman - users won’t make these subtle distinctions between squads, and would be confused if players who, in many cases, appear in match day squads week in week out are not listed. Macosal (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Macosal: We're not talking about players who appear in matchday squads week-in-week-out, though. If a player appears with that regularity, obviously he's part of the first team. We're talking about a player who makes a single appearance as injury cover or for a bit of first-team experience and then returns to playing regularly for the reserves or under-18s. – PeeJay 13:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The supplied example is actually from a B team, so there isn't even that level of complexity PeeJay. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you define "regularity"? GiantSnowman 14:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

^The difficulty in answering this, and the incongruity of having players playing on the field who are not in a team's "current squad" are why I agree that those players should be included. Macosal (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would use the same definition as Macosal, which would be playing "week in week out". If they're consistently involved, i.e. either playing or even as an unused sub for a sustained period, they're probably first-teamers. However, I'm of the opposite opinion to Macosal, in that I think the woolly nature of these definitions means we should err on not including players in a first-team squad list unless a reliable source specifically backs up that claim. – PeeJay 13:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? For instance, say we only have the match by match reports - linking several matches together to prove that they are "consistently involved" is synthesis. The problem with defining definitions is how to then verify it with sources, which is why we have used club sites - but they are not exhaustive, nor reliably updated, nor do they exist for every team or cover every situation. Koncorde (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• If a player makes an appearance for the first team over the course of the season, and is not definitively on a reserves contract, they should be on the "current squad" list. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a 'reserves' contract as far as I know? You get professionals or youth players, really (in England at least)...and you can get 16 year old youth players playing regular first-team football and a 25-year-old pro playing in the reserves (especially backup keepers)... GiantSnowman 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - unless things are different in other countries, there is no such thing as a "reserves contract". A player has a contract with the club, not with specifically either the first team or the reserves -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In the Premier League, at least, there is the 25-man squad that has to be named, but this does not help with U21s who do not have to be added to the list. Spike 'em (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In MLS, I believe, players on MLS-2 rosters do not necessarily have MLS contracts. I'm also thinking of AFL, even though it's footy and not football, where a team has a reserve team and can send players on the first team down to play for the reserve team, but the reserve team also contracts with some top-up players who don't have contracts with the first team. That's what I mean by "definitively on a reserves contract." I'm not suggesting it's applicable everywhere, or at all, but I still think the distinction important enough to note. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sport or Sport Recife

Should we abbreviate Sport Club do Recife as "Sport" or "Sport Recife"? I see no consistency over some users' edits, some of them just write "Sport" while some others write "Sport Recife".

What's the right way to proceed with this case, and many others ("Murcia" or "Real Murcia" and so on)? MYS77 ^✉ 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The club common name was Sport, but due to disambiguation better adding Recife. Matthew hk (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree to simply as 'Sport Recife'. GiantSnowman 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a need to make things consistent, especially in order to avoid too many rules. In tables in Brazilian media, it's typically just "Sport," while a quick look at the Portuguese article shows Sport and Sport Recife are used interchangeably. I would err on the side of "Sport Recife" except in tables, where I'd just keep it "Sport" especially since many if not all tables have the city name in a column immediately after the team name. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing flagicon linking in continental club competition articles?

As teams competing in continental competitions (e.g. 2018–19 UEFA Champions League) are representatives of their national associations, flag icons are displayed next to the club names. For example:

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Tottenham Hotspur	3–3 (a)	Ajax	0–1	3–2
Barcelona	3–4	Liverpool	3–0	0–4

However, these flag icons link to the general article on the country (e.g. Netherlands). Instead, should these flags link to each country's FA, which is much more relevant to the article? I've created the template {{fbaicon}}, so the code {{fbaicon|NED}} outputs (now linking to Royal Dutch Football Association). This could be also displayed on other articles which have flags next to club names, for example 2018 FIFA World Cup squads. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• support Per WP:OVERLINK, it is unnecessary to link to country each time Hhkohh (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's what this proposal is about, but okay... – PeeJay 10:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I would prefer that the flags didn't link at all. I believe the {{TwoLegResult}} template is used for sports other than football, so changing its code to link to national football associations would be inappropriate. The template currently uses {{flagicon}}, so IMO the ideal thing to do would be to change it to {{flagdeco}} so it just doesn't link any more. – PeeJay 10:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @PeeJay2K3: The issue with {{flagdeco}} is that it is meant for when article text immediately adjacent to the icon provides the associated country link for the flag. In this case using flagdeco would be "purely decorative", therefore violating WP:ICONDECORATION. I'm sure a solution can be found regarding {{TwoLegResult}} (e.g. a module), however all other instances of {{flagicon}} for clubs (match boxes, brackets, qualified team tables, group tables, etc.) would be simple to convert to {{fbaicon}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay, but you definitely can't just change the link to the national football association for the reason I described above. The template is used for other sports, so linking to a football association would be a bit presumptuous on our part. – PeeJay 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree, which is why a new module that allows for further customisation would probably work. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The flags should either 1) be linked to the football association articles; or 2) not be linked at all; but certainly not linked to the country article itself; but as somebody has said, it is used for sports other than football, perhaps it would be a bit closed-minded to limit this discussion to the football project page. No matter which choice was chosen, it should contain some sort of Template:Tooltip where the short name of the country is displayed when hovering over the flag; this is for people who are unfamiliar with flags (yes there are many flags which are not commonly known) and also for accessibility. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Chanheigeorge: I don't think a tooltip is possible in this scenario, but the image does contain WP:ALT text with the country name. And the flag linking to the article on the country's FA should suffice for those needing clarification. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• And another Comment - Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider whether to create a new template or a module which allows us to more easily edit or maintained these one-legged and/or two-legged matches table given its high usage, similarly to we have done in Module:Sports table/WDL for league tables and Module:RoundN for brackets. I have found the current implementation quite "hacky". We have to basically use four different templates: Template:TwoLeg start, Template:TwoLegResult, Template:OneLegStart and Template:OneLegResult for one "job". Also for example, to change the flag to an older version, we have to use this var1 and var2 parameters which, I don't know, looks kind of strange and uninformative. I don't think it would be that difficult to implement a centralized version where we can put all of the possible variations into it. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Having this style of table be created with Module:Sports table would be the best option as its scope is exactly this - handling sport related tables (this would also make sure that the table's style doesn't violate the MoS like incorrectly using {{abbr}} for "agg"). --Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The link should be to the football association and the new template seems a sensible way of doing so.   Jts1882 | talk  16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm not sure I think this necessarily makes a difference between country or football association, but I also am firmly against unlinking them at all on accessibility grounds. Tooltips don't work on my phone, so hovering over an unlinked flag I don't know shouldn't an option. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, linking to the national FA is relevant to the article, while linking to the country is WP:OVERLINK. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • In this case I don't think WP:OVERLINK applies since the link helps to identify the flag for people who can't see very well. – PeeJay 11:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think it applies here either, as flagicon has been designed to link to the country. Whether flagicon violates OVERLINK (and I do not think it would) is a larger conversation than what we're having here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Though either way, linking to Portuguese Football Federation would be more relevant to the article than linking to Portugal. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
          • On what grounds? The Portuguese federation article is barely an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I guess because the club is representing the national association, not the nation itself. – PeeJay 21:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• No flag icons and no linking There are problems aside from the FLAGICON issues. First, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons states that we should accompany flags with country names unless the nation is linked nearby. This is an accommodation to MOS:ACCESS. Clearly presenting only an icon ignores that. Screen readers may make a dog's breakfast of tables like this. Similarly, as mobile devices are becoming more prevalent a picture of a nation's flag does not offer any information if the flag is unknown to the reader and there is no ability to hover on these devices. This causes no end of problem to the MoS and usability in general. That these teams are merely located in the nation and do not represent the nation is another issue. They probably shouldn't link to the association either. They usually represent the league, but that poses other concerns, such as when a non-English team gains placement in a tournament because they finish atop the Premier League's table. Of course, OVERLINK is also an ongoing concern. The only link we need is to the team article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am strongly against removing flags altogether. While not national teams, clubs are contextually considered in relation to their countries in international sporting competitions, and is consistent with international competitions in other sports, such as 2018–19 EuroLeague. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: First, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons states that we should accompany flags with country names unless the nation is linked nearby. Though MOS:FLAG states: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country", and "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag... Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table". At 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Association ranking, all the associations with flags are listed prior to sole flagicons being used, thus following the MoS. Screen readers may make a dog's breakfast of tables like this. All flagicons contain WP:ALT text to aid screen readers. Similarly, as mobile devices are becoming more prevalent a picture of a nation's flag does not offer any information if the flag is unknown to the reader and there is no ability to hover on these devices. Hence why the flags are linked for readers, and the first use of the flags are accompanied by the country's name. That these teams are merely located in the nation and do not represent the nation is another issue... They usually represent the league This is incorrect, while teams qualify through leagues (and national cups for the Europa League), they are ultimately representatives of their national associations. Per article 3.1 of the Champions League regulations: "UEFA member associations (hereinafter associations) may enter a certain number of clubs for the competition through their top domestic championship... Associations are represented on the following basis: a. one representative: winner of the top domestic championship..." The national associations have control of who participates in these competitions, hence why they can deny teams entry for reasons such as licensing issues (examples: [3] [4] [5]). S.A. Julio (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry friend you're simply wrong. For instance, France is not linked anywhere near the section in question. The association team allocation, where it is linked is near the top of the article but the section in question is near the bottom. Unless of course you stretch your definition of "near" to mean "on the same page", which is not what the MoS states. The use of ALT text does not aid the screen readers in this case, unless they have it turned on, and why would you expect a mobile reader to leave the article to see the linked nation is beyond me. Kill the use of flags. You're stuck in the 18th century. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• After the countries and flags are first introduced, most of the remainder of the article is used to show the teams and their results in the competition. Naturally, given the length of the competition, the later stages will be further down the page, though this does not warrant a repetition of the country name. Not sure why alt text "does not aid the screen readers" here when it is listed first at MOS:ACCIM. These icons serve an encyclopedic purpose by identifying which FAs these clubs are representing in international club competitions, hence why I suggest they link to the more relevant FA articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Walter. Clubs do not represent countries. Kill the use of flags. You're stuck in the 18th century. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Considering the sport wasn't even invented in the 18th century, I think you're talking out of your backside. You've presented nothing to back up your claims. Of course clubs represent their nations on the international stage. If that weren't the case, UEFA wouldn't bother talking about how different nations have done against each other historically. – PeeJay 12:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree flags make sense as teams qualify through their national association. I'm neutral on where it should be linked, but it should be linked somewhere so people can figure out what flag it is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Of course there was sport in 18th century, look at Racing Calendar for instance. Well, probably 19th century would be more appropriate analogy here. However, clubs do not represent nations, they represent FAs. National teams represent nations. National and club football are two different things. And UEFA does not talk. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• And FAs represent nations. That's like saying Olympic athletes don't represent nations, they represent NOCs. And I think you know what PeeJay meant about UEFA talking about things. Obviously UEFA, being a corporation, is not endowed with the power of speech. But there are press releases, and statements from people within UEFA, about this. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Smartyllama: Thanks for backing me up, but don't feed the troll. It's clear Ludost Mlačani isn't here to make any helpful points. For someone who's retired from Wikipedia, they sure are talkative! I didn't say "sport wasn't invented in the 18th century", I said "the sport wasn't invented in the 18th century", referring to football. – PeeJay 13:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I retired from editing, because it is pointless. But I am still allowed to comment things or I am not? Clubs do not represent countries. Look at English clubs. Players are from everywhere, club owners are foreigners, 90+% percent of ManU fans are not from England etc etc. These are facts, things changed in last 200 years and having national flags next to teams in misleading if not discriminatory. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• comments such as "...misleading if not discriminatory" is just trolling, and this whole debate appears to be deteriorating into irreconcilable factions. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I Support the use of flag icons in such cases within tables and the Infobox only; in other areas, it can be considered WP:ICONDECORATION. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Historic reassigned goals (in English championship)

A couple of questions about a (possibly) reassigned goal 8 years ago(!), relating to 2010–11 Crystal Palace F.C. season / Neil Danns / Jermaine Easter:

1. Does anyone know of a reliable source that may detail this?
2. What should be done to the season and player records when there is a dispute over this?

I've added more details on the talk page of the article, but all contemporaneous reports credit a goal to Neil Danns, and I can only find a fansite that mentions the change to Jermain Easter. Soccerbase and 11v11.com have differing goals totals for the players concerned totals and it seems someone has added a ref to Neil Danns to justify his career totals including the goal, as Soccerbase is used as the ref there. Is there FOOTY policy on how to deal with cases like this? Spike 'em (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is a good source (maybe by the league) I'd leave it as it was originally. -Koppapa (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Cup top scorer navboxes

We have league top scorer navboxes - what about Cups? {{DFB-Pokal top scorers}}. GiantSnowman 15:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a thing in Germany. There is no award given to the topscorer and in the early years different sources often don't agree. -Koppapa (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If there's a page for it, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a navbox. --SuperJew (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

PFA team of the year.

Just wondering what people thought about it, my only dig is how Pogba got on it, Son Heung-min has had a much better season!! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum. There are plenty around the web to talk about that. Just my two cents. Kante4 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a football project talk page, if you can't have a timeout or a little chat about stuff now and then. Then all you are, are robots to wikipedia, please Kante, don't ever be a wiki-robot. Govvy (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the PFA will move the voting for the awards to something more like the end of the season once Taylor finally leaves as chairman. Then the results will make a lot more sense.--EchetusXe 23:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your point is straying away from WP:NPOV, so I'd suggest you find some WP:RS to support this assertion. ;) Spike 'em (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

pfft Evening Standard mate! :P Govvy (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality again

Apparently Martinique is "not a FIFA nation" and so the player's nationality is French. Yet Martinique national football team exists, and while they're not recognized by FIFA, they are recognized. Comments? Guidance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Martinique is an overseas department of France, and it's football association is not associated with FIFA. It is a member of CONCACAF, which makes it eligible for CONCACAF competitions like the Gold Cup. In describing a footballer's sporting nationality, I think you could say "Martinique international" (if the player is capped), but otherwise I think it's more appropriate to describe the player as French (if you must, and it's easy enough to include the player's place of birth to show the Martinique connection). Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The roster templates we use do not support a second field for place of birth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's tricky since some overseas departments are FIFA members (New Caledonia) and others aren't (Martinique). A bit of research shows you can represent both Martinique and France internationally, so I'd stick to French, recognising my answer would probably be different if the player were New Caledonian. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

He's French, representing Martinique. An odd one, but is functionally the same as a Jersey / Guernsey player per List of England international footballers born outside England for instance. Koncorde (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Some lame argument. To be very accurate, it should be British footballer who represented England/Wales/Scotland national team. Or since BOTC are BC now, it should be a British footballer who represented Gibraltar/Bermuda/British Virgin Islands etc. However, footballer should shown "sport nationality" instead of real passport (or please add back British to every article until Scotland/N.Ireland-exit). However, the only problem would be Martinique is not a member of FIFA, but an associate member of CONCACAF (edit: full member). For players that only played in Martinique domestic league, i don't mind just keep Martinique in lede. But for France proper (the European part of French Republic) born player that also represented Martinique national team, may be better keep them as French. Matthew hk (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if referring to me, but as far as I am concerned the correct way to refer to "English" players should be by their nationality first (i.e. British). The use of sporting nationalities as functionally the same as representative nationality for me is half the problem. The lede should be simple, either:

1. is a French footballer, born in Martinique. Represents Martinique internationally.

2. Is a footballer who plays for Martinique.

Per below from GS. Koncorde (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

For players Martinique born & raised use 'Jean Smith is a Martinique footballer'. For others, do what we always do if a player was born in one country but represents another - 'Jean Smith is a footballer. Born in France, he represents Martinique at international level'. GiantSnowman 15:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the question asks which flag to use in an infobox, I'd use French in all instances, since Martinique is not a member of FIFA. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Flag is another issue. the official flag of Martinique should be tricolor France flag, the Martinique flag in sport and in the "country data template" actually an unofficial flag. Matthew hk (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Youth player club categories

I believe we used to have consensus that players who never went beyond a club's youth team still got categorised as a player of that club, and that we didn't have specific youth player club categories? An editor was removing Category:FC Barcelona players from Jon Toral, and when reverted, added the then non-existent Category:FC Barcelona youth players, and then created and started to populate it. Was wondering what the general view is these days on separate youth player cats for clubs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I noticed this as well - there is consensus that we do not have 'youth' categories for clubs. GiantSnowman 11:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The creation of Category:Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy players at the beginning of last year triggered a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#Academy player categories, which led to the category being redirected to Category:Celtic F.C. players. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ferran Corominas

Requesting protection for this article amidst unconfirmed transfer rumours. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, though future requests can be made at WP:RFPP. GiantSnowman 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Alan Rhodes

Two rugby league players and one footballer who I think might all be the same person. Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#Alan Rhodes, input welcome! GiantSnowman 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

National team squad navigational boxes for UEFA Nations League Finals?

From past discussions on this project and TfD nominations, there is a consensus to only create international squad navboxes (i.e. Template:Iceland squad UEFA Euro 2016) for the World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition, men and women. However, recently the UEFA Nations League and CONCACAF Nations League competitions have been created for national teams. In a few weeks the squads for the 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals will be announced, and I suspect templates such as {{England squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals}} might be created. Should there be team squad templates for the finals of this new competition, or should they be avoided/deleted if created? S.A. Julio (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest they should be taken to TfD, where I would !vote to delete. The Nations League finals is a four-team tournament that lasts less than a week. I don't think a squad template is particularly necessary for a minor continental competition. – PeeJay 08:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 08:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As The competition largely replaces the international friendly matches previously played on the FIFA International Match Calendar I'd say according to our consensus there's no point in squad navboxes. --SuperJew (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Christian Eriksen

[6] , was this disruptive edit automatically accepted? Govvy (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The diff / page history says it was a pending revision, so I'd say no. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Though the user who made the edit is Autoconfirmed, so according to WP:PC has rights to edit the article, and Pending Changes does nothing to spot non-constructive edits, only slows down new editors. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Record section of Mohamed Salah

What in the world happened to the record section on the Mohamed Salah article. it looks like some Liverpool fanboy or proud Egyptian tried to add as many records as possible. I know the consensus of this particular issue, that not all records are equally important to include, which is why many got deleted both from Messi's and Cristiano's pages. Of course it's not up to me to decide or anything, but I see a clear bias and problem with this, as other footballers had similar records taken away from their pages, but somehow Salah's get to stay?

Fourth Fastest Player to reach 50 Goals Milestone in Premier League history: 72 games (only Andy Cole (65), Alan Shearer (66) and Ruud van Nistelrooy (68), have reached the milestone in fewer appearances) What the hell is even this?? that's not even a record, far from it actually. Fourth? really?
Egypt's Third all-time top scorers: 39 goals (behind Hossam Hassan 69 goals, and Hassan El-Shazly 42 goals) Third??? so, also not a record.
Highest-scoring Egyptian in Serie A history: 35 goals in 81 games Might as well do the same for other footballers then? would mean we get to double or even triple the record section of both Messi and Cristiano with this logic.
Most goals by an African player in a UEFA Champions League season: 11 goals in 2017–18 This one makes a little more sense, but still, would need to add the same to other footballers pages too.
Highest-scoring Egyptian in Premier League history: 50 goals in 72 games Should we do this for all nationalities who scored most goals in a leage?? SteamingStars (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can all be removed in my opinion. Kante4 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything of note (ie actual achievements covered in detail by reliable sources) can be mentioned. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean it isn't worth noting that he's the all-time highest-scoring Egyptian in Premier League history out of a huge total of ELEVEN players? You know, you may be right ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of not including anything that wasn't actually awarded by a governing body. Being a top scorer with an RS is suitable for prose in most occasions, but hardly in the achievements section. These fit statistics cruft to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Notts County F.C.

Some eyes on this article would be useful as I'm already up to three reverts. Semi-protection would be particularly helpful! Cheers, Number 57 19:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

But you're an admin, you could do it yourself! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that it's not obvious vandalism and I've already reverted three times, some people may take an issue with me semi-protecting it. Although Kante4 has helped out, it's still being changed. Number 57 20:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: Cleaned it up a bit. Just semi-protect it. It's not that controversial - I for one support you. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:English football updater

How come this is already being updated to reflect division changes which impact divisions which haven't even finished their current season? We now have the Leyton Orient article saying they "currently play in League Two" even though the 2018-19 League Two season hasn't finished yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that it should only be updated once each league's season has finished. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is ambiguity for the period when the season ends (and the club no longer plays in Division X) and the next season (when they currently play in Division Y). It's not correct to say that Leyton Orient currently play in either. Unless there is a more sophisticated way of modifying the text to say where they will play next season, it would be better to make the changes on July 1st or whenever the official change of season occurs.   Jts1882 | talk  06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion last year at Template talk:Scottish football updater and the consensus was to wait until the league in question was finished. Whilst there are still games to go, Leyton Orient are still in the National League and I think we waited until the playoffs concluded before we updated them but I could be wrong for the Premiership teams as the playoff final is usually the last game of the season and it was updated before then. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, when should the “current season” in the league infobox change? For example, when the 2018-19 season ends or when the 2019-20 starts? Nehme1499 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me that updated the new leagues for three clubs whose seasons are complete and their divisions next season are definite (Orient, Torquay and Stockport). My rationale was that we usually get editors trying to update the leagues of clubs as soon as promotion is confirmed, which usually involves removing the updater if it hasn't been updated already. I wasn't planning on doing any of the others until the FA release their league allocations. Number 57 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I supported the introduction of the updater in the hope it'd stop the premature addition of leagues the clubs don't play in, not institutionalise it. According to all reliable sources, Leyton Orient do not play in League Two and we shouldn't be claiming they do at least until the League Two season finishes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've undone the league changes for Orient, Torquay and Stockport. If anyone sees any other issues with my updates, they're welcome to ping me (I only saw this discussion when commenting on another). Number 57 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've watchlisted those three clubs, for when the enthusiasts notice... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• For the future, I don't see any problem with saying something like English League Two
  English League One (2019-20, promoted) in the infobox during the time between the end of the season and the start of the next. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes

Is there any reason for the space between the navboxes at the bottom of this page but not this one? I can't work it out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Stevie fae Scotland: The Kilmarnock seasons template had a use DMY dates template attached, which created a line break. I've removed it on consistency grounds/fixed the issue (if this is wrong, revert me.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think navboxes need those templates, do they? Thank you very much for sorting it Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but willing to admit I'm wrong if it comes down to it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A gap in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players' career statistics chart

I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players article does not specify if we should use the same pattern for the lines of apps and goals (i.e. League - Cup - Continental - Other) for every player article in this encyclopedia.

I'm mostly editing Brazilian and Spanish football, and while in Brazil I use the League - State League - Cup - Continental - Other pattern (since state leagues in Brazil are a very present championship and some of the teams do not have any national leagues to play) and in Spain, I use the League - Cup - Continental - Other (since there are no more "League Cup" tournaments or so on). However, I did notice that in England the most commom pattern is League - Cup - League Cup - Continental - Other.

Taking for an example Elias Martello Curzel, @Davidlofgren1996 changed the chart to a more "international" pattern, but he took Copa FGF as a national cup, which is wrong. Copa FGF is at most a state cup, so it's neither a state league nor a national cup.

My question is: should we standardize it? How many lines should we have in the chart? It gets very confusing since one user can establish his/her own standard. MYS77 ^✉ 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think if we already have the stats charts (which is another issue which should be debated IMO in another thread), then there should be a consistent standard between them, especially as players can and do move between leagues - a player won't necessarily be only in Brazilian or only Spanish football and as said above there are different patterns more appropriate to each. But in one table for a player it should be a consistent table, so therefore should be standard across the stats charts. Once we decide a consensus on what should be the standard, I also think we should have it as a template, to make it easier for new users to the field and who are less familiar with the consensus reached to keep to the standard. --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In my limited experience, Brazilian state leagues have been categorised as 'Other' (see eg Rivaldinho). GiantSnowman 07:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: This leads to a bunch of questions, such as: why Brazilian leagues should be categorised as 'Other' and the English League Cups should have a line? State leagues are as important in Brazil as League Cups are in England... And to categorise state leagues as 'Other' is a pretty way to mess up the sum and add a bunch of notes, since a non-division club (i.e. Portuguesa) would play in the state league and in some state cup to complete the year-long calendar (in this case, Copa Paulista). This state cup would be (and is currently) categorised as 'Other'. MYS77 ^✉ 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Numerous countries have league cups, not just England - but how many countries have a 'state league' set-up like Brazil? GiantSnowman 14:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with categorising state leagues in Brazil as "other". Most Brazilian players will play much more often in state leagues than they will in national leagues, and these leagues are notable enough to warrant season articles on wikipedia (when anyone can be bothered creating them). When editing Brazilian player articles I mostly see a split between what MYS77 describes and an approach which has the state league "season" as a separate line in the table to the national league "season", thus maintaining a league - cup - continental - other layout which matches other countries. I prefer the former, which is fine for the vast majority of players who don't leave Brazil, but appreciate a more compromising approach may be needed for expats. Gricehead (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Yep, that's exactly what I'm asking... For an example, I do categorise state leagues in 'Others' when it comes to non-Brazilian players (i.e. Jonathan Copete, Carlos Andrés Sánchez), since they didn't play in a state league for the vast majority of their careers. What I'm trying to do here is to know if it's okay to add them for Brazilian players who played the most of his career in Brazil. MYS77 ^✉ 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Same with Christian Cueva - we should not categorise State League differently for different players. Either it has its own column for all, or it is 'Other' for all. GiantSnowman 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The other category tends to imply less important games. Brazil is unuusual in having state leagues as an important part of their football structure. Wikipedia presentation should reflect this. While generalisation and standardisation are good guiding principles, flexibility and completeness are also important. Here I favour the latter pair.   Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've also always categorised state league stats in "Other", due to other examples such as Neymar. However, I'm in favour of adding a state league column for all players; makes sense given their importance in Brazilian football. R96Skinner (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@MYS77: I have been thinking about this for a while, and most of my Brazilian page creations have fit with the way I format the stats. However, I think for Brazilian footballers (who have played in their respective state leagues), there should be a standard.

I think that League - State League - Cup - Continental - Other works, with competitions such as the Copa Paulista falling under the 'Other' category. If a player moves to a team that competes in a League Cup, this should be specified, i.e. League - State League - FA Cup - League Cup - Continental - Other. This makes sense to me as some players would never play in a league cup, and some would never play in a state league, therefore they should be added when necessary. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an example, I have updated Adílio (footballer) to this new format. This player has played in both Brazil and Portugal, has played in a state league and a league cup, so I have blanked out the state league column for the Portuguese clubs, and blanked out the league cup column for the Brazilian clubs. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, also in Adílio (footballer), @Davidlofgren1996 and I were raising another question: when a player is only playing in a Brazilian lower league structure (basically in a "non-division" status, only playing state leagues and cup state leagues), should we add the state leagues in the Division column or not? I, in my current edits, do this type of approach (Diego Pituca is a clear example), but David thinks it's not actually accurate to add them to avoid confusion (and I do think he has a point there, but adding is quite correct in the Brazilian football structure). What do you guys think @Jts1882, @R96Skinner, @Gricehead, @GiantSnowman? MYS77 ^✉ 22:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can only echo what you said, @MYS77. I do the same in terms of division, e.g. Leomir Soares Cruz, but understand it could lead to confusion but it's probably the best way to display - unless we agree to switch to adding a state league column, then it would be self-explantory so no need to add state league under division. R96Skinner (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Vic Kamara

Hello. Can anyone check this article. Has Kamara played and scored for Eupen, Kecskeméti and Kasımpaşa? Does he pass WP:NFOOTY? I have doubts. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Biwom: I share those doubts - I suggest you PROD. GiantSnowman 10:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I also share those doubts. Found absolutely nothing in a web search. Searching his full name brought up only Wikipedia on one search, first time that has ever happened. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the TFF website, no Kamara played for Kasımpaşa during the 2015–16 or 2016–17 seasons. Looks like a hoax article. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:대한민국_헌법 on UEFA templates

대한민국_헌법 (talk · contribs) has been editing UEFA templates without explaining the changes. SLBedit (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:KARLSRUHER at Leroy Sané

Could anyone have a look at the recent edits at Leroy Sané? There is an IP that insists on Schalke instead of Schalke 04 in violation of WP:KARLSRUHER. I don't want to edit war. --Jaellee (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That page is an essay and is not an official rule or guideline that has to be followed. Empty argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.211.128 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

a) You're wrong, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#WP:KARLSRUHER and Ron-Robert Zieler

b) Please sign your edits. --Jaellee (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The page itself says it is an essay and not a policy or guideline so I'm not wrong. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless the consensus here agreed to follow this essay and you are deliberately going against it. --Jaellee (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care, its not a rule or guideline so I refuse to follow it. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's what you have to do. Call it a rule, guideline or consensus, that's what we do and it is correct. So, stop the edit warring. Your statement to now follow it is not good... Kante4 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to follow an essay, its not an official rule or guideline. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But there is consensus to use it. Kante4 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't care I'm not going to follow anything that isnt an official rule or guideline. 109.152.211.128 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User now blocked for 24 hours. Was too late here in the night to fill in a correct request (my bad) at the edit warring board but El C (talk · contribs) took care of that. Kante4 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The attitude of this IP was really worrying. --Jaellee (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Season already finished?

Do we already list the the winners of a league even if there are still two matchdays to go? In the 3. Liga there is an editor that insists inserting the winners of the 2018–19 season. Osnabrück has already secured the first place, but as I said, the season is not over yet. --Jaellee (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Serie A, for example, already lists Juventus as the winners so I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source confirming that a club has won the title, I don't see the problem. Obviously there's always the slight theoretical possibility that something could come to light to cause them to be docked points or otherwise get stripped of the title, but that could happen even after the season has ended, so I don't think we really need to consider that an obstacle..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

I was curious, where did this sit in terms of WP:NSEASONS? The sources look like mainly primary sources. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all the references are to Coludata.co.uk, which is not operated by the club itself as far as I can see and therefore not a primary source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 57 11:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a definitive point where a season becomes non-notable, but being in the same league as Torquay Reserves isn't a promising sign.--EchetusXe 20:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion a WP:NSEASONS failure (it's really poorly defined) can still be overcome on WP:GNG grounds, but I don't see enough sourced material here showing the season was covered in any sort of substantial detail. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In think the season article has to consider one of a series of season articles for a club that has been a professional football club for 80 years, all but two in the Football League. The season in question was the one where they earned election to the Football League, which gives the season notability. The fact of their election to the football league is certainly verifiable through national press, even if the article doesn't include such sources. Verifiability is the requirement, not that it is verified in the artice, and I doubt anyone will dispute the fact they they were elected to the football league and have been part of it almost continuously since then.   Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So if there were more independent sources it should pass WP:GNG, I can see that, however the way I see it and under current guidelines, this and the previous seasons should be removed, the following season should be where the season pages start from in my view, it's a shame, Jasonakagary88 has done good work creating them. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well before this gets archived, I don't know how to combine articles into one AfD;

• 1937–38 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1938–39 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1939–40 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1945–46 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1946–47 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1947–48 Colchester United F.C. season
• 1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

Those ones above fail WP:NSEASONS maybe someone can combine them into one AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: instructions for nominating multiple articles in one AFD are at WP:BUNDLE, however you might want to nominate one to start with to gain consensus and/or consider nominating them separately anyway due because bundling a number of articles can result in a procedural close if there are potential lengthy GNG arguments. GiantSnowman 10:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I put 49-50 article to AfD first to see how it goes. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is winning promotion an "honour"?

Quick question - for the purposes of an "Honours" section in a player's article, is gaining promotion by finishing third or even fourth in the league an "honour"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe so. IMO "honours" are when you win a division, cup etc. The rest could probably be described as "achievements". Number 57 18:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You get a cup for winning the EFL Championship playoffs, but not for qualifying by finishing 2nd in the league, yet the latter is more of an achievement than the former......Jopal22 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It depends how you define "honour". Players receive a medal for finishing third in EFL League Two. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not for me aswell, like Number57 said. Kante4 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is an honour. This is discussed every few months. As long as the honour is referenced then that trumps "imo promotions aren't an honour so I'm removing it".--EchetusXe 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with N57 and K4 - no. GiantSnowman 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: How is it an honour though? It's one thing to be able to source the fact that the club was given a trophy and the players given medals for winning the play-offs, but is it traditionally listed among the player's honours in a biography? – PeeJay 19:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

David Wagner profile at the LMA. Are there any comprehensive footballer biographies that don't have play-off success in their honour list? Can't picture it myself.--EchetusXe 19:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And do those include "winning promotion" as league runners-up as an honour? – PeeJay 19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, at least that link makes special note of the fact that winning promotion is not an honour in the same way as winning an actual trophy is. – PeeJay 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1st place is an honour, everything else is runner up which we generally don't include. By all means it can be mentioned within the biography, and should be, but it's probably not a significant footnote in a game that has lots of promotions each season. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Neil Warnock has more promotions than anyone else in the game (as far as I know) and his honours section is hardly cluttered. Compare to Cristiano Ronaldo's honours section, a man who has never been promoted but has won countless other honours. Hmm, has anyone else compared Neil Warnock and Cristiano Ronaldo before?--EchetusXe 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What if you get a silver medal at the olympic football event?Jopal22 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Medalists have their medals listed in the infobox.--EchetusXe 08:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick observation: The question was asked regarding promotions in a player's article and the examples of the people for including it are David Wagner and Neil Warnock, both managers at the time of the mentioned promotions. I would think a promotion is more notable for the manager of the team than one of the players (as in the manager is more responsible than one player). --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The honours is suppose to list the silverware a player has earned, if there is no silverware given for second place in the league, then no honour should be present in the list. Thats how I view it anyway. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Govvy. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Merging of "English football clubs in international competitions" and "English clubs in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League"

At some point after the season ends I was going to merge English clubs in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League into English football clubs in international competitions. This will involve essentially redrafting the article, and I will add references where there are a lot missing at the moment. Just thought I'd give a heads up here in case anyone has any concerns. Jopal22 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: Stadium naming on UEFA articles

I know UEFA don't like sponsorship names and use other stadium names, should the UEFA articles we have also reflect that or not? Govvy (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so: we are not constrained by their MOS and would use the commonly recognised name at the point of time that the article was written. Spike 'em (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, was just looking through the UEFA articles earlier and some UEFA.com citations don't match up to stadium names, that's all really. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Argentine Superliga move

Is Mikelelgediento's move of the Argentine Primera División to the Argentine Superliga correct? I'm not sure so wanted to see what others felt before potentially contesting the move and/or linking to it via other articles. Mikelelgediento says its the "Current name of the competition", they aren't wrong (though it would be Superliga Argentina, rather than Argentine Superliga... right?) but I thought its generally more expected that the article's is consistent with others? Similar leagues are named with ___ Primera División (e.g. Bolivian Primera División, Paraguayan Primera División) despite differing official names. R96Skinner (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. @Mikelelgediento: this needs a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, the same user also moved the Superliga Colombiana article to Colombian Superliga (which was originally created under the latter name but was soon moved to its native one), but seeing that the articles for the other South American super cup competitions such as Supercopa Argentina or Supercopa de Chile are also titled with their native names makes me wonder whether that move could be contested as well or the other super cup articles should be renamed that way (including the articles for each and every edition of these tournaments in order to keep consistency). CodeMars04 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, contest them - I don't think the pages should be moved without discussion, especially away from the standard with no good reason given. GiantSnowman 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Move reverted. CodeMars04 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, here Mikel.
The name Argentine Primera Division, is outdated and content an old name of the current Argentine Superliga which is organized by the Argentine Superliga Civil Association (SAF) an organising body independent of the Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (AFA) —like La Liga is organized by the Liga Profesional de Fútbol (LPF) which is independent of the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF)— in contrast, the former competition Argentine Primera División was organized directly by the AFA until 2017. The official name of the competition is Superliga Argentina and it is better known by that name.[7] [8] [9] [10] Beyond that I do not know anyone who speaks English that knows the Argentine Superliga as "Argentine Primera División".
I also consider that it is a bit strange that the article contents words in Spanish that are perfectly translatable. The same happens with the article Superliga Colombiana. I mean, the Danish Superliga is not called Dansk Superliga or Danish Superligaen neither the Albanian Superliga as Albanian Kategoria Superiore or Superliga Shqiptare. Mikelelgediento (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that: i) The Primera División is not a "former" competition, rather, the Superliga is the same Primera División competition under a different name, and ii) the regulations for both the 2017–18 and 2018–19 seasons, which are the ones that have been under SAF purview so far, refer to the competition in their introduction as "Campeonato de Primera División" (First Division Championship), which implies that the "Primera División" name is still deemed valid by both AFA and SAF. Considering that, and the standard currently used for other similar leagues, I don't think the current name is incorrect or inaccurate. CodeMars04 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And even if there has been a change in the name (and I'm not convinced so far) an undiscussed move was entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 07:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is entirely appropriate to label someone's contribution entirely inappropriate when we have WP:BOLD. WP:RM states If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. @Mikelelgediento:'s response above indicates they felt it was a valid justifiable move, and also that they are willing to discuss. Seems to be following WP:BRD just nicely so far. Just saying. ClubOranje^T 09:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Three editors in quick succession raised issue with the moves. BOLD does not apply to those kind of moves. It was, at best, naive to presume there would be no issues. GiantSnowman 09:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely WP:AGF allows for some naivety? Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did those users raise issue with the move before or after the pages were boldly moved? If after, is the user supposed to have used his crystal ball to know that they were going to raise issue, or his time machine to go back and not make the move? It seems the first user to raise it here even stated the article name it was moved to wasn't wrong. And as with the Ladies club names below, I believe we should be naming things by their names, or at least COMMONNAME, not some predefined consistent format that might satisfy my Aspergers. Perhaps Mikelelgediento feels the same and thought the move would not be disputed. Bold absolutely applies. ClubOranje^T 10:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the user is supposed to use their crystal ball - one called WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 10:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The name is not incorrect but outdated. Of course the name of the competition is that, but the Spanish La Liga also has in its name Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Primera División (National First Division Championship) however the article is not called Spanish Primera División because it is more popular with the name La Liga, it's a brand. The same happens with the Argentine Superliga, since 2017 that name became its brand, the name of a product. The name Campeonato de Primera División Superliga because it is a Top-division competition, but I think it is unnecessary to give it a generic name when the tournament already has its own name that is part of the brand. Mikelelgediento (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Simply start a move proposal on the article's talk page. I for one would support a move per WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Stoke City formation date

Please can someone ensure this article stops being reverted.

While the club itself claims 1863 as its formation date, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and plenty of evidence that Stoke Ramblers, who merged with Stoke Victoria CC in 1878 to form Stoke FC, were formed in 1863.

Field magazine of 1868 states that ‘a new club has been formed [in Stoke-upon-Trent] for the practice of the association rules under the charge of H.J. Almond’, and the Birmingham Daily Post reported on a Stoke Ramblers game in 1868 by saying that the club was newly founded that season.

These sources are continually removed from the article, and the incorrect information put back on. Again, there is NO evidence that the club was formed in 1863. A date cannot be accepted as fact just because the club itself says so. Same goes for Worksop Town, Cray Wanderers and plenty of others.

Just because a year is on a club badge, doesn't mean this should be accepted as evidence of a club's foundation year. Kivo (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd put 1863 or 1868 (disputed), and then outline the background in the club history section Jopal22 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not really disputed among football historians though. There is zero evidence that Stoke City were formed in 1863. Contemporary reports (Field magazine, Birmingham Daily Post) all state that the Stoke Ramblers club was new in 1868. Kivo (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How about you and Add92 stop edit-warring, as you are both in danger of breaching WP:3RR (sorry I miscounted edits) and try to find a compromise which mentions both years and the doubts. How reliable is the playingpasts website? I saw something come up on twitter about this today, which I guess is what the impetus behind this. Spike 'em (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The Playing Pasts website includes original research, and the Birmingham Daily Post source (which keeps getting deleted) is as contemporary as you can get - it quite clearly states that the club was a new one created for that season (1868/69) Kivo (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will edit the article to show 1863 as being disputed, while showing why 1868 is generally accepted by most football historians. It will be reverted. Kivo (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the source you state says "However, the origins and early history of the club is unclear." I would say the club celebrates 1863 as the date of formation, but some football historians contest this and believe the club was formed in 1868.

To say "1868 is generally accepted by most football historians" is way too strong. Plus you shouldn't just go ahead and make changes again if the article is in dispute. Suggest a change on the talk page and try and reach consensus. Jopal22 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about this at Talk:Stoke City F.C.#Protected. Thanks.--Add92 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

consistency with names of teams in the FA WSL

It seems there are a few formats for clubs in the FA WSL (and Championship): there's "W.F.C." suffix (Arsenal, Birmingham City, Brighton & Hove, Bristol City, Manchester City, Charlton Athletic, Durham, Leicester City, Manchester United, Sheffield United), "F.C. Women" suffix (Chelsea, Liverpool, Reading, West Ham United, Lewes), "L.F.C." suffix (Everton, Yeovil Town, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Millwall Lionesses, Tottenham Hotspur), and even one with no suffix (London Bees). Should there be consistency with these? Should they all have the same suffix (like the F.C. ending for almost all the clubs in the Premier League apart from a handful of A.F.C.)? What about "W.F.C." and "F.C. Women"? --SuperJew (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Short answer, No. Longer answer, Championship and Superleague teams listed by the FA use those suffixes (although some without the FC bit). It is not for Wikipedia to change the club names. To take a random example from above, the Tottenham Ladies FC website link in the infobox takes you to Tottenham Hotspur Ladies Football Club, while Liverpool have Liverpool FC Women There might be a case for renaming some, as this has Chelsea listed as Chelsea Ladies FC, which doesn't match the article. ClubOranje^T 09:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A side note based on an upcoming name change, that "Spurs Ladies" will be renamed to "Tottenham Hotspur Women" starting from next season thanks to their promotion to the top flight. I guess their official name listed by the FA will be updated accordingly, and the article will need moving, in due course? I think I read somewhere that all teams in the top flight will be changed to being "Women" rather than "Ladies", but I can't find that source anymore --Philk84 06:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The page names on Wikipedia should be named after what the clubs are named after. I have noticed some teams have changed their names in the recent past. My thinking is that every club participating in the WSL should have the suffix "W.F.C." since the full name would be Women's Super League. Currently in the 2019–20 season, only Everton and Tottenham have the L.F.C. suffix. Whether Everton may wish to change to "Everton W.F.C.", they should decide the name change. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Players being released

Just a polite reminder to all editors given the recent number of Football League clubs announcing their 'released/retained' lists - any players who have been "released" will not leave the club until the end of their contract on 30 June 2019. As such, they should remain with their current club (on squad lists, templates, and in their own articles) until that time. GiantSnowman 09:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it relevant though if they have no games left? --SuperJew (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. It's simply not correct, and nothing stops players being 'released' and then signing a new contract. GiantSnowman 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree that when players get released in advance, the information of the season just gone (the tense, the division the club is in if they've moved divisions the following season etc.) should be as it is as of the last match played. Stoke City have released a list of free agents - I've viewed the Jakob Haugaard page and shows content which appears on 1 July 2019 (no club in lead, end year visible in the infobox) whereas Paul McShane (footballer) shows correct details as if the season has not expired. They should be changed on 30 June 2019 as GiantSnowman says on the latter article. The club article seasons say "The season covers the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019" so that's how I come to this comment. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the offending change at Haugaard's article. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's great but I don't think I should describe that as "offending", I'd made that a factual error in which some people aren't aware of the policy. Iggy (Swan) 09:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal W.F.C.

An anonymous IP address over the past couple of days has made edits to the page putting in the club logo but in the same day a bot removes the image saying it violates WP:NFCC. This appears to be inconsistent as the other WSL club articles have the logos in the articles. I feel like that's not right as the following was said to me from User:Struway2 in 2017 about club logos:- "club logos are copyright so we can't use them anywhere apart from the club articles." which I was not aware of until that edit was saved by Struway2. I should think it is fine to use the logo on the article as well as the men's since these two are affiliated with each other. From the page history, two registered users and two IP addresses have put in the logo only for this bot to remove it. One says the logo is owned by the club. I suspect that more people would agree that the logo is to be used correctly and that it matches other articles for the WSL champions. Iggy (Swan) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a WP:NFCCP violation – policy does not restrict a non-free image to a single use, only to "Minimal extent of use" (and also note the phrasing of point 7, "One-article minimum"). However, the reason the image in question is being removed from Arsenal W.F.C. is that there is no non-free rationale tag for use in that article – see WP:NFC#Implementation ("It is important to remember that a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia. If the image is used in two separate articles, two separate rationales are needed, unique for both articles."). If this was in place (I've just added it), it's fine to use it there. Number 57 20:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Iggy the Swan: Not having a required non-free use rationale is a NFCCP violation (WP:NFCC#10c) and such files can be removed per WP:NFCCE. However, the reason this file is not being used in the Women's and Academy's articles is that its non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg and it was removed by an administrator as a result. If you look at the top of File talk:Arsenal FC.svg, you'll find mention of this discussion. So, if you want clarification on this or feel it should be reconsidered, follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with the closing administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: OK, will do. I agree about the reserve team's article not being an appropriate usage, but not being able to use it on the women's team article is a ridiculous situation given that they're a fully-professional club in their own right (and also inconsistent with the fact that many other clubs' logos are used for both men's and women's teams).

@Explicit: As the closing admin of the discussion in question, could you review this? Cheers, Number 57 23:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a logo specific to the Women's team (File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png) being used in the main infobox of the Women's article, but it was removed here and then subsequently deleted per WP:F5. It might be better to ask that that file be restored instead if it's still usable. Women's teams have been considered to be "child entities" of the parent club, which means the parent club logos are not automatically used by default. Some Women's teams do have their own specific branding and this is preferred to be used instead. WP:OTHERIMAGE is not really relevant here since the non-free use of badges in those other articles may be also not policy-compliant; they just haven't been discussed yet. WP:CCC, however, does mean that maybe a new consensus can be established; however, there have been attempts to previously do so at WT:NFCC for not only soccer but other sports team logos, but the consensus goes back a number of years and it's not been easy to come to an agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Marchjuly's comment above, I have restored the ladies' logo and added it to the article in question. ℯxplicit 00:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That explains everything relating to the logo. I didn't know they had a separate logo in relation to the academy and the senior varieties. Iggy (Swan) 09:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly has developed an idiosyncratic/radical interpretation that women's teams are "child entities" of men's teams and has set his bot up to remove hundreds of logos from professional clubs and national teams as a result. He's persistently failed to gain consensus for his view, which even Number 57 (who won't be winning any awards for feminism/equality!) rightly regards as ridiculous. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson:: I don't have and have never had a bot. Please provide diffs which show that I operate a bot. It's not my consensus that "child entities" shouldn't use the logos of "parent entities" automatically by default; it's something which has been established over time through various discussions at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD, some of which happened before I even started editing. So, please provide diffs which show me knowingly or persistently ignoring any community established consensus. If images were removed, they were done by an administrator based upon a consensus said administrator felt had been established through discussion; if they were removed by me after that, it was because the consensus established was that the files should only be used in certain ways or in certain articles. I have no problem discussing things with you or anyone else in a civil manner, and as I pointed out above a consensus can change over time; so, feel free to discuss your concerns with the administrator(s) whose close(s) you don't agree with. If I remember correctly, you were indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry over an extended period of time, which included edit warring and using socks to !vote multiple times in various discussions. There were also personal attacks as well. You've been reinstated because the community felt that you were going to move forward, not backwards; so, I'm not sure why you've decided this was the right time and place to rehash some old disputes by casting aspersions against another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate the withdrawal of the needless personal attack, which for some reason you thought would be a good idea to ping me for. Number 57 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Acronym in article name

Hi. If a teams calls itself "BFA Girls Team", with BFA standing for "Beirut Football Academy", should the article's name be "BFA Girls Team" or Beirut Football Academy Girls Team? Also, in case I were to create a Beirut Football Academy article, should it be called by its acronym or in full? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether the acronym is usually used or not. We have many articles on clubs that are best known by their acronyms and are titled using them – e.g. NAC Breda. Number 57 22:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok makes sense, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Saša Bogunović

Hello football enthusiasts. The above page has no references, but there are a number of external links. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bogunović is notable, yes. Over seventy appearances (per Soccerway) across the Serbian First League and Ekstraklasa (& potentially First Professional Football League (Bulgaria), both listed at NFOOTY FPL. The article is in need of major improvement, though. R96Skinner (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course he is, great player. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Chris Hughton

The world of football have received the news that Chris Hughton has left his position as Brighton manager. Which article should this information be best placed in - the 2018–19 season which is still ongoing (the playoffs are still in progress) or the 2019–20 season even though it says it starts 1 July 2019? Iggy (Swan) 18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What does the source(s) say? It's effective now or for the new season? Kante4 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a limit on this? Seems like something that should probably be mentioned in both articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Their official statement says immediate, so 2018-19 as that season "counts" till 30 June 2019. Kante4 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant for both seasons. Even if it's just as a postscript to this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Alisson (footballer, born 1992)

Our article has nothing about his family background. His surname is Becker - did his father's family migrate to Brazil from a German-speaking country? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Kante4 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

His name is Alisson and his brother is called Muriel? They sure do have unusual naming customs in Brazil..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, what makes you say that? Do brothers get given the same name where you come from? ClubOranje^T 13:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ClubOranje - my quip was more to do with the fact that where I come from Alison and Muriel are both girls' names (in fact Muriel is very much a "women over 70" name) so it's odd to see two men with those names.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah!. Have a 'girls' name myself, so....didn't occur to me. At least they aren't all called Dave. Wonder what Muriels were called before they turned 70 ;). And if it is ironic that you mention this with your handle being what it is and Chris being somewhat unisex itself... but I'm probably off topic now. ClubOranje^T 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I once worked with a guy called Chris, who had a sister named Christine (or possibly Christina).Spike 'em (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Shades of Emlyn Hughes, who as I recall had a son called Emlyn and a daughter called Emma-Lynn ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, i had a friend (girl) call Theo (Theodoros), and she had a brother Theodore. Back to Alisson the footballer, it may be (or may not) be notable to add German link to personal life section. But i also read an article (on a print magazine) in the past, that claiming Rivaldo is 1/8 (or 1/16) German descent, or went back to great grandfather generation, which seem not notable to me by myself ( and i can't dig out the article either in 2019). Matthew hk (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Famous fans again

Can I confirm that consensus is that "famous fans" sections are not encyclopedic? I removed such a section from Milton Keynes Dons F.C., which included such gems as noting that someone who doesn't even support the club "attends games from time to time", but @Abcmaxx: reverted me on the grounds the content was sourced. It may be sourced, but IMO that does not mean it is encyclopedic content. Thoughts.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Someone's genuine support for a club might be important enough to them for it to be included in the personal life section of their article. It'd be pretty unusual for someone's support for a club to be important enough to that club to be included in that article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The only instance of this being notable was if they became affiliated with the club in some way. Notable fundraisers, Norwich FC has a part saying "The club also maintains a healthy celebrity support with celebrity cook Delia Smith and comedian Stephen Fry both having moved from fans of the club to running it", which I think is justified. However, simply saying that "Actor Hugh Jackman is also a fan of the club," and "Presenter Jake Humphrey, who was born in Peterborough but moved to Norwich with his family at the age of nine, is another celebrity supporter." should be removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally never liked adding famous fans to football articles, I even hate the fact that we have stupid articles like Arsenal F.C. supporters, it's just full of list craft. Even Millwall F.C. has a notable supporters list which I feel should be removed. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In terms of that particular MK Dons section, I think it's okay to mention Jim Marshall and Dan Wheldon, since their support is historically notable in the context of the club. Everyone else can have their support noted on their own personal page. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have written a "supporters and culture" section in the Hibs article. There is often a kind of feedback loop between the two, i.e. the Proclaimers are Hibs fans who have written songs about the club and the local area, and some of those (particularly Sunshine on Leith) have then become unofficial club anthems. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Not notable for me. Kante4 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, I wouldn't consider that a connection notable enough to include in the article on the club. Something like Elton John at Watford, where the fan's support has actually had a material impact on either the club's performance or on public perception of the club, I'd consider the bar for inclusion. "If the club announced they were renaming their main stand after this person, would you be shocked?" is a reasonable thought experiment. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Supporters and culture" sections are generally significant for major clubs. However, it should be limited to actual Supporters Groups, not random musical groups and other celebrities who happen to have shown their support for the team. Smartyllama (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Same name/surname

Hassan Chaito and Hassan Chaitou have the same name (حسن شعيتو), with "Chaito" being slightly preferred for the first footballer and "Chaitou" for the second. However, they can be used interchangeably along with other transliterations such as "Cheaito", "Shaito" ecc... The first footballer, however, is definitely more known than the second. The first is also known as "Moni", while the second as "Shibriko". While Moni is ambiguous, search results for Shibriko are only related to the footballer himself (no ambiguity). In short, what should the names be? I think that the first (Chaito) should stay the same, but I'm undecided between Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1991), Hassan Samih Chaito, Hassan Chaitou or Shibriko. What's your opinion? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Precidence of style seems to favour the former. Case in point Paul Smith (footballer, born 1991) and Paul Smith (footballer, born 22 January 1976) (and many other Paul Smiths) to affirm that would appear to be the correct way to style it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Should both have the (footballer, born 19xx)? Or just the second one? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is also a Paul Smith (footballer, born 25 January 1976). Hence why the very specific disambiguator. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean should Hassan Chaito and Hassan Chaitou become Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1989) and Hassan Chaito (footballer, born 1991)? Or just from Hassan Chaitou to Chaito (footballer,...), without changing Hassan Chaito? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be the former (footballer, born xxxx). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh man, what happens if two Paul Smiths get born on the same day? --SuperJew (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We'd have to just go on personal preference. Paul Smith (footballer, born 12 June 2002 - the good one). :P. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We have such things as Paul Smith (former Raith Rovers footballer) or Paul Smith (footballer, born Macclesfield) to fall back on; there are plenty of other things we can use to disambiguate if we ever need to. I imagine in places like Korea where the pool of commonly-used names is much smaller, it does arise from time to time. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me that in Israel we have two dudes named Tal Ben Haim who played at the same time in the Israeli Premier League and for the Israel national team, so they are known as Tal Ben Haim I and Tal Ben Haim II :) --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Iceland has such a limited pool of names in common use, the phone book lists the occupation of every person listed, in an effort to reduce ambiguity. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_FC&curid=4677863&diff=897539084&oldid=897537274 Trying to get this project to come up with simple guidelines is a waste of time, but when is an initialism a nickname and just a way for sports writers to save space? The ManU article has what I think are dubious "nicknames" and this editor is relying on them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This editor doesn't even have the decency to ping me - always showing disregard for the editors around here. Please see User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee#Nickname fields discussed and also Talk:York 9 FC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked you to start the discussion and you refused so why would I ping you? Besides, I knew you'd stalk me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because it involves our discussion? Obviously I watch the page, not you, it's about the common courtesy which you obviously lack. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I suggested you were a stalker. Glad you're watching the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the "short name" and "nickname" parameters are, rightly, separate. I honestly don't see the issue in adding an acronym or, indeed, a short name in the short name parameter. Also, the Manchester United article is FA, so I'm guessing that there has been consensus regarding this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about separation of the fields as they are distinct, but the question is: is an initialism an actual nickname or short name for a club? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If an 'initialism' or 'acronym' is used in the common media and by the club as a nickname, then it should be considered as such here as well. I haven't searched about the others, but this is the case with regards to TFC and Y9. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I might be interpreting this wrongly, but isn't the issue regarding the use of TFC as a short name for Toronto FC, or of MUFC as a short name for Manchester United F.C.? The nicknames are "The Reds" for the former and "The Red Devils" for the latter, I'm not seeing the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That is an entirely correct interpretation. The issue is that TFC is not a short "name", rather, it's their initials. It's as if we would state that the short name of the "President of the United States" is "POTUS" just because press and media use it, or that "HRH" is the short name of "Her Royal Highness", or "EPL" for English Premier League. On the other hand, FIFA is the common name of "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" and should be listed as an abbreviation, and NASA is more common than "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" and if its template had a short name field, that would be used there. In my line of work we frequently use abbreviations (i18n and l10n are two of the more obscure) and so I'm aware of when they are used as substitutes as opposed to saving time. While initials are shorthand for a topic, they are not short names and certainly not nicknames. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how it applies in this case, but I think the initials are sometimes used as a shortname, e.g. QPR and WBA. I think these are different than MUFC or THFC in that these latter two wouldn't be used in a newspaper article, but the former two would.   Jts1882 | talk  14:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Palestine, British Mandate?

Hi, is there any reason why {{Fb|Mandatory Palestine}} shows Mandatory Palestine instead of Mandatory Palestine? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Country data Mandatory Palestine is not a protected template and I did not saw any discussion thread about the name. Haven't check the edit history one by one for whatever it was bold edit in the past or it was created that way. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Woodford Town

This is a messy situation that to me is confusing to the reader and needs resolving. In summary, Woodford Town F.C. (1937) were founded in 1937 and folded in 2003. This club name laid dormant until for a while at senior level (although was around - years unknown - at junior level) until 2015 before Bush Hill Rangers merged with the junior football club (see Woodford Town F.C.), although that club disappeared a year later. Then, in 2017, an almost identical situation occurred when Haringey & Waltham became Woodford Town 2017 F.C. - who have now dropped the 2017 suffix. This club has the same logo as the one that went under a year before and seems to claim the lineage of the original club. To confuse things further, Bush Hill Rangers are now back in the Hertfordshire Senior County League. What's the best solution here? I'm leaning towards having one article for the three Woodford Towns, one for Bush Hill Rangers and one for Haringey & Waltham (including its numerous predecessors). OGLV (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say: One article covering Haringey & Waltham and the current version of Woodford Town (as it's the same club, just renamed) which should be at Woodford Town F.C. due to its recent rename, one for the original Woodford Town at Woodford Town F.C. (1937), and one for Woodford Town F.C. (2012) covering the Bush Hill Rangers version (2012 being the year of its foundation). Number 57 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - should the re-formed Bush Hill Rangers should be factored into the 2012 article, even though they are now in the Herts league? And is it right not to have one article for continuity when this has been for other clubs, e.g. Darlington, Edgware Town (and probably a few others)? OGLV (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is much continuity here – the current version is a separate club that was around at the same time as the 2012 version (under a different name at the time). Number 57 21:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The FCHD regards the current club as the continuation of the last two, and Bush Hill Rangers as the continuation of the club that changed its name in 2015. Woodford's website has a similar narrative. OGLV (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

With the overlap, it might be best to have three separate articles, named Wolford Town F.C. (1937–2003), Wolford Town F.C. (2007–16), and Wolford Town F.C. (for the current one). SounderBruce 22:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct naming format would be Wolford Town F.C. (1937), Wolford Town F.C. (2007) and Wolford Town F.C. (2012). GiantSnowman 15:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving a category

For many years I had an ability to move a category, a feature that I only occasionally used for moving things like Category:FC Renamed Club players (or managers). Now the Move button is gone for categories. I tried to look around but I can't find if it's something changed in my account's permissions, or is it a global change that now requires all category moves to go through WP:CfD? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

BlameRuiner - WP:CMOVE explains it pretty well. Requests I believe do indeed need to go through CfD specifically WP:CFDS. I don't know if the move category used to be a thing, but I'm pretty sure it's simply bundled with admin rights now. Hope this helps. Looks like speedy renaming only takes 48 hours, so it's not too bad. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of article

Hey guys, just wondering if this article (Melbourne City FC league record by opponent) passes notability? - J man708 (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

These types of articles do exist - Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent was a Featured List - but I see no evidence that the Melbourne City FC example is worthy. GiantSnowman 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think this might fall under Too Soon? Also, it doesn’t show the FFA Cup, but does show what their Youth team has done at NPL level. - J man708 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I think it OK. Leave it be or add to it. ClubOranje^T 12:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian state championship year

Input from subject matter experts would be appreciated on Draft:1914 Campeonato Carioca. If it is notable, move it to mainspace. If not, leave a note on the draft's talk page. Thanks. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: definitely notable, the state championships are a big deal in Brazil (which didn't have a national league until the 1960s) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved out from draft. But personally i think it need improvement. e.g. add more citation such as news article (even offline one). But at least 1914 Campeonato Carioca seem better and more complete than 1987–88 Luxembourg National Division (see Talk:1987–88 Luxembourg National Division for the issue). Matthew hk (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Side note) I already know the quality of some Luxembourg Football articles aren't that good, and I am aiming to improve them where possible assuming there's something online that can confirm/deny what's already there. --Philk84 14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Premier League team of the season graphics

Does anyone have thoughts about the graphic used on Premier League seasonal articles for the PFA Team of the Season? They usually feature coloured text, or text on a coloured background to represent the team played for with no explanation and often have MOS:CONTRAST violations that makes the text barely readable. It is always next to a separate listing of the team in text form, so is duplication of content that does not provide any extra information. The tables used in recent seasons make the positions even clearer and the graphic even more superfluous. e.g.

• 2018–19
• 2017–18
• 2013–14
• 2012–13

In the past I have tried changing to plain text (e.g.Talk:2017–18 Premier League/Archive 1#PFA Team of the Year graphic) and removed the hidden links, but I think the whole concept is very messy and either needs to be removed or done in a clearer way. Spike 'em (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would just remove the colour altogether. The teams can be seen in the table, so I don't think it's necessary to tamper with the names on the graphic. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Colours are complete fluff. They clearly cause an WP:ACCESS issue, and the club colours aren't all that helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely remove. The colours can't be used to identify a specific club in most cases (players from multiple clubs that wear blue or red in the same team) so are purely decorative -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Table does it, image is DECORATIVE, and the whole thing with the names just make it more so.

Plus the first one I looked at I thought only had nine players until I looked closer and could make out a couple of Man City players. And that Pogba one, with black on red is equally hard to read. ClubOranje^T 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we just remove the graphic and make the table usage consistent or keep them in there with plain black text? I would support the former. Spike 'em (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My eyes hurt looking at that. I would remove the graphic. Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the graphic from the season pages and add it (with normal black text) into the single PFA TOTY pages, in the same way the Serie A TOTY does it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the CSL seasonal pages

So I was going through the no-rank articles and I noticed that their was a page for the 2013 York Region Shooters season. Now I think this isn't allowed as the club is not in a professional but instead its a semi-professional team. So what are people's thoughts on this and should these articles be deleted? HawkAussie (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:AfD it. It's certainly not going to pass WP:GNG because it was hardly a huge groundbreaking season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom Hadler

Hi all, would it be possible to get a few more eyes on this article? A user who contends that he is the subject's brother is making repeated unsourced changes to his height and left me a particularly foul-mouthed message when I reverted him..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted and 3rr message left. GiantSnowman 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationality of uncapped players born in <y> country but with <x> country descent

I know, it's been discussed to death, but I can't find a clear definitive statement in the archive. There's a small bunch of Swiss IPs (possibly just one user) semi-regularly changing the squad-template flag of uncapped French-born players who have descent from another country, such as [11] and [12] (I reverted this one as it included other changes which were not in the source). The descent is referenced in the player articles in most cases. My understanding, from dealing mainly with English/Welsh and English/Irish players is that the flag stays with the country of birth until the player is capped at some level. I'm happy to be corrected. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case the player hasn’t stated a preference regarding his potential national team, I think the country of birth takes precedence over the one of origin. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to use POB, if he also had the nationality of that place. Some country would not automatically grant nationality to person born within the border of that country. While for descent, it would just led to argument as some French born African footballer, have multiple "place of origin" due to POB of his father and mother. Those footballers are French footballer until they made their debut for another country. Matthew hk (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

POB here. The players are French until they declare for/are capped by another country. GiantSnowman 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Released players

Louder for those at the back - players who are "released" will not leave their clubs until the expiry of their contracts, which is 30 June 2019 in England. All it means is that the contract will not be renewed. See e.g. Wayne Routledge who was "released" before being offered a new contract a few days later. He has not left and re-joined. He never left. He has always remained contracted to them. GiantSnowman 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A teammate example would be Wilfried Bony who is one of a few to be released from the same club (except Routledge) so I should expect the article's lead to say that he still plays for them until the date GiantSnowman mentioned. Thirty-seven days left until the date has come and gone. Iggy (Swan) 17:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994)

Rampant vandalism, can the page be protected please?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Acorona619/Luis López (footballer, born 1999)

Could a fellow editor help Acorona619 understand how this project's football infobox works. They wish to make changes (diff) to the infobox on the Luis López (footballer, born 1999) article.

1. Changing the player's spells with Águilas UAS and Tijuana Premier from senior career to youth career, despite López appearing for both in league competitions that are a part of the Mexican football league system; therefore count as senior spells (here, since been accepted as in any tier).

2. Use of a hyphen over an en dash for infobox years.

3. Other small things, like not capitalising Goalkeeper for position and use of "(loaned)" over "→ Tijuana Premier (loan)".

I certainly assume good faith and have attempted to discuss to help them, but have had no luck other than a series of reverts. If I'm wrong, please correct me. R96Skinner (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Player that signed but did not play any match

I explain you: a player signed (and trained) for a team X, but finally the Federation did not register the player due to some irregularities. Must this player appear in the category of that team X? And must also the team appear in the infobox? Thank you. Asturkian (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes...? Crowsus (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If the player was never registered, then I'd say no. That's what we did with Alex Jones, who "signed" for Wellington Phoenix but the New Zealand Federation messed up the paperwork. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Signings are usually annnounced pending the paperwork. If the paperwork fails then the signing is never complete and the player never formally a part of the club. So I agree that shouldn't be in the infobox.   Jts1882 | talk  10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My case (a basketball player) is exactly like the example of Struway2. So, not in the infobox and no category. Asturkian (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style - Football

Following on from the recurring arguments about flags on football, and other discussions that crop up repeatedly, I noticed that snooker had it's own MOS:SNOOKER. Should Football not have a similar MOS page to outline things like Flags, players records in infobox, what constitutes an "honour" etc. This way we can document the outcome of talk page discussions, and avoid them repeating continuously? Jopal22 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are claimed MOS articles, but they are just outline examples rather than detailing what consensus exist. One point to make is that the Example Season HAS NO FLAGS! Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as fair warning, as someone from the Snooker wikiproject, the issue on flags came up regardless at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1, so having a MOS on flags (and the site wide one) doesn't solve all issues, for whatever reason. The Snooker MOS was also made a long time ago, and does need updating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Top scorer for national team honour?

If a player is the top scorer for a country in a competition, for example the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, or even the competition in general, such as the AFC Asian Cup, would that be considered an honour to be added in his page? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Goalden boot for a competitive sanctioned international tournament is an award. So yes to your first. Top score for your secon...the history of the tournament, is not, and will change over time, but would typically be mentioned in the records and statistics section/article for the competition. ClubOranje^T 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not talking about being the top scorer of a competition, rather of being the player of his country with the most goals in that competition. So if he has 2 goals and no one else in his country has ever scored more than one in that competition, would that be considered an honour/achievement or not? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say definitely not for the "single edition of the tournament" one. "Top scorer for Sweden at the 1978 World Cup" sounds way too trivial to me, especially given that the player in question top scored with one goal! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What about “Top scorer for Lebanon at the AFC Asian Cup: 2 goals”? Or would that also be considered trivial? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not an honour in that section. With a source, it could go in the text as a casual mention. "He was selected for the Lebanon squad at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup and finished as the nation's top scorer with two goals from four matches", etc. Crowsus (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok that's what I imagined, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we usually put it in an "Individual" section under honours. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate under Indidivual --> Performances or under Records --> Lebanon? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nehme1499, Not. ClubOranje^T 13:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's World Cup

With the Women's World Cup starting in a month, I think we should have a small push to improve the visibility of women's football content in various areas, e.g. DYK and GAN. I have already taken 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup to GA/DYK and plan on nominating for FAC with hopes of it running on the Main Page in time for the 2019 final or the 20th anniversary of its final, both of which are in mid-July. It would be amazing to have a full set of women's football hooks for DYK for the opening match and final, like we did with last year's World Cup. SounderBruce 06:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. For those going, are there many people or places that need photos? Hack (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For those interested, there is a dynamic list of women footballers who are notable for an article but don't have one yet (or it is very minimal) here. I added redlinked WWC players too while working on the squads page. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup squads is also good for the current players with no articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

International career dates

I know this has been discussed a number of times before, but I was wondering what the current consensus is about closing off a player's international career dates if he/she is still active, hasn't explicitly retired from international football, but realistically looks exceptionally unlikely to ever get called up again? The example I am particularly looking at is Matt Jarvis. He played once for England more than eight years ago, and although he has never explicitly announced his international retirement (why would he?) he is now 33 and most recently played in League One. Do we really need to wait until he completely retires from football to close off his England career, even though common sense dictates he'll never get another cap? Will I be reverted if I remove the dash from his infobox.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For me, the dash should be removed after 1 year of inactivity. If he were to be called up again after 1, 2 or 8 years then the dash should be put back. I say 1 year because it's the "limit" for the "recent results and matches", and therefore of the "recent call-ups", section of the national team pages. While this is only my opinion, I think it's the most logical solution to this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd put in the years from first cap to latest cap, and update it if they play again in a subsequent year. That way the dates would always be complete and up to date However, I recognise that I am likely to be within the minority on this, despite how logical I feel this approach is. ClubOranje^T 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's what I do too when a player has retired. The "dash" to indicate a player being active though should be removed after 1 year I think. If a player stops playing in 2017, and after one year he still hasn't been called up, I would put 2008–2017 one year after his last call up and 2008– between 2017 and 2018. I'm not sure if I have made myself clear. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I realized now that you would opt to remove the "year1–" altogether and just stick to a "year1–year2", updating the year2 in case the player is called up in following years. I would be against that since we don't put 2018–2019 to the club years once a player signs for a club in 2018 and plays in 2019. If I were to read 2008–2019 for an international player, I would assume the player played an international match this year and (explicitly) retired internationally the same year. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Club is different, a player has an ongoing contract, so the information is verifiably correct. With International, you never know if a player will ever be called up again. With circa 200 countries, 2/3 of which have women's teams as well, so that's say 350 squads of 20+ players, just taking the last squad call up, so 15000 article potentially. You could almost easily double or triple that with the players that have been called up years ago but not since. That's a lot of articles with potentially wrong or misleading information. You know you have a problem when you find a player who's been dead for some years but their international career still says 2008-. Or a player who is now 42, but hasn't been capped since she was 23, but hasn't announced retirement. How long until you close it off?

With first cap date/last cap date as they happen, the information is always correct and verifiable, which is probably a good thing for an outfit claiming to be an encyclopaedia.

As for what readers might assume, which one should never do, because when you make an assumption you make an ass out of u and umption That is easily fixed by tweaking the note at the bottom of the infobox. ClubOranje^T 07:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say one year without a call-up is a decent cut off point, based on the logic that that is where the national team pages recent results end. Otherwise I'd say maybe 3 years, but that would be a arbitrary figure.--EchetusXe 06:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think 3 years is acceptable, arbitrary though it may be. GiantSnowman 08:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say both of those arbitrary cut off points are original research without either an announcement of retirement or bereavement, and therefore neither are acceptable. I think the only acceptable thing is to have first cap date, last cap date. Verifiable. ClubOranje^T 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute on Trent Alexander-Arnold's page

Hi all, to avoid getting myself involved in an edit war may I please request assistance in respect of a dispute on the page of Trent Alexander-Arnold. The most recent edits relate to a semi-contentious sentence in the lede which a new editor continues to change. The editor in question, Jurgenflopp123, persists in changing wording in respect of the esteem in which the player is held. Given that the users name is an obvious mockery of Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp, I don't think it is far-fetched to assume that these edits (in respect of a Liverpool player) are not done in good faith. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of anything saying "best in the world", without it being attributed to a specific source. But the idea of only defining it to a single season is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any non-English writers who have made this assertion? I don't think the Liverpool Echo can be treated as a neutral source on this sort of claim. Spike 'em (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply: I will have a look for non-English writers and see what can be found. I think the Echo piece is iffy in any event and can probably be removed. It is supplemented by more reliable and impartial sources such as ESPN (US), the Guardian (UK) and now The Times. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The opinion expressed is clearly synthesis. Please either cite an organisation of merit that has identified him as such, or place the language in the voice of the people described. It is also not appropriate in the first few sentences and should be within the body of the article. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply What sort of organisations would qualify? And do you have any suggestions on how to make the voice apparent? I do, however, disagree that the placement is inappropriate. It is quite common for these statements to be included in the lede. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It'd be appropriate when a player has won titles, awards, and has played more than 1 season, where the opinions expressed are coming from notable individuals and are clearly expressing their opinion (i.e. Pele). But personal opinions should be placed in the voice of that person where possible or attributed to them, and we should not be synthesising "greatest" or "best" by throwing three or four unrelated and mixed articles of different degrees of laudatory content and using it as the basis for the claim (that is Synthesis and close to OR). It is unfortunately common for people to get hyperbolic about footballers, this seems like one of those situations. Try putting Trent into context - where is this list of "World Class" fullbacks, what are the criteria, how many "among the best fullbacks in Europe" are there? And by organisations we are talking FIFA, UEFA, The Premier League, PFA Awards, national newspapers of actual standing (not the Echo, nor tabloid), and sporting organisation awards or long established awards from media with actual gravitas. Bold claims require bold sourcing with the actual words included that are being reflected. Koncorde (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What a load of ffffancruft. Considered best in the world by whom? A few starry eyed Liverpool,supporters. Everything that's wrong with football players articles on WP. Half those reference don't even support the 'opinion'. One of them says 'he becomes one of the best in the world if playing Fifa19 in career mode' give me a break. Bollocks like that shouldn't be in the article let alone in the lede. Clear violation of COI by anyone who puts that crap in any footballers articles. At least until they have been up on the podium for Balon d'or of Fifa best player. ClubOranje^T 10:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your points. While I understand how my username can be displeasing to some section of fans, it is a mere joke and I apologize for the same. However, I want to point out that the edit made by me in the article was driven by the nature of me being righteous and neutral, as the article stated a 20 years old player as "one of the best in the world" when neither of the sources mentions that. Furthermore, as already pointed out in this discussion, one of the cited sources that actually did call him "best" used a video game (FIFA 19) to make the case. I still stand by my reasoning. However, I would definitely accept the decision whether it goes in favor of keeping the bold statement or removing it. Jurgenflopp123 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear "one of the best full-backs in the world" is not supported by sources. Are you going to honour the consensus of this discussion and remove the line, @Liam E. Bekker:? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Have done so happily. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Related league competition to cup competition

Hi, quick question: the top 2 teams in the Lebanese Second Division are promoted to the Lebanese Football League (1st division). Those two teams also qualify for the Lebanese Challenge Cup, a cup competition between the 7th to 10th placed teams of the 1st division (the 11th and 12th get relegated) and the two promoted teams. Long story short, should Lebanese Second Division be a "related competition" in the infobox of Lebanese Challenge Cup? And also, should the Challenge Cup be considered a "domestic cup" in the infobox of the Second Division?

Thanks in advance, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Is there anyone here that can assist in reverting an IP on this article? The table they are adding is WP:TOOSOON as the June rankings have not been released yet. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Igor Štimac

Needs the input of language expert as three editors are disputing the correct writing of the surname, Štimac or Štimać. Article name has been moved many times over the last week so further input most welcome as discussions have become a little heated.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags - again

‎Mattythewhite has gone through all of the Premier League seasons and removed flags, sometimes getting into edit wars to do so. Even if he is right in his reasoning, which I do not think he is, you'd think he'd ping the talk page here first before making such major changes on multiple articles that then makes them inconsistent with the articles of all other countries/leagues. I know we've had this discussion before but I can't find it, and I think there was agreement to keep the flags. Thoughts? Jopal22 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus formed by a WikiProject's members, if that is indeed correct, doesn't supersede a guideline, in this case WP:MOSFLAG. That's not to mention that the flags are *entirely* unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the discussion we had before said MOS:SPORTFLAGS contradicts that. Whatever you think, you shouldn't have made such a major change on multiple articles unilaterally Jopal22 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They give false prominence to the nationality and I fully support what he is doing. The flag is far more prominent than the club team, which actually is important in these tables. Spike 'em (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG supersedes all indeed. If this makes it not conform to other nationalities, they should then also follow the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this before and it was evident that it was okay to have flag icons next to football players to represent their federation country. I don't know why Mattythewhite is going through removing all the flags, this big issue was discussed before and consensus was to keep for football players so to change without discussion seems very unproductive. I would prefer the flag icons be restore for all the footballers. It was also evident that flag icons shouldn't be used for managers. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We've certainly been through it all before, and some people have certainly felt very strongly that having a flag against a footballer's name regardless of context is more important than following the MoS, but I'm not sure that a small group of editors on an individual project can make such a decision. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There as been a long history of discussion around this, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 13 and various other places. One user shouldn't impose their interpretation ignoring all the discussion that have gone on before Jopal22 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, this again. Recommend these all be reverted per WP:BOLD and then consensus formed before these flags are removed as it's not something I support. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's ridiculous how often we have to keep going through this. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: can you please make sure to check the edit history fully before reverting changes. On one of the Premier League articles you reverted an edit of mine which had nothing to do with flags -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yeah, sorry about that, my bad. There were a couple others with more recent edits that I think I fixed (plus one with two more recent edits, one of which was reverting the other, so I didn't bother with that one and just restored the last good copy.) Smartyllama (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to revert Jopal22 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Smartyllama:. Some editors don't seem to have any regard for the project's MoS or policies. Unfortunately you appear to be one of them. Next time you mass revert my edits, would you mind only reverting the relevant bits, instead of hours worth of other improvements including copy edits and reference formatting? Ta. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have read MOS:SPORTFLAG as recommended in your edit summaries. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing that supports including flags *without* accompanying country names, as laid out by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. I hope I have missed something, as I'd hate to think that you would be disingenuous when citing a MoS in 20+ edit summaries. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smartyllama:, I have just noticed that you accused me of "vandalism" in numerous edit summaries. Could you please substantiate that claim? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Matty, The MoS is out of date, alt-code covers country name which passes WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I find it helpful to have the flags there, especially when you don't know which nation a player represents. It's fine as it is with the flags. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get why a player's nationality is so pertinent to a *club* competition. Even if they were, they should be sourced and presented alongside the names of the countries, in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For example in league competitions where foreign transfer regulations are a factor, I think that knowing weather or not a player is local or not to the league is relevant (such as in the Chinese Super League). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it all getting a bit silly now with the most recent flag additions? Surely we only need to see the flag once against a players name in an article and not every time that player is mentioned? How many French flags does it take to work out Thierry Henry is.......French?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone reads the whole page. It's very likely someone might, for example, be just looking at the top scorers section without having seen a previous section in which the person was already mentioned. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If people really want to know where someone is from, they can make use of the link to the player's article.Spike 'em (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Something being helpful isn't an inclusion criteria. I always think it just is WP:ILIKEIT, rather than what MOS:FLAG states, which is that flags need to display something. International competitions? fine. Player biographies are depreciated. These articles seem to only have flags for managers (which is completely irrelevant), and players nationalities. However, none of this information is ever mentioned in the prose, so flags should have zero baring on the readability of an article. Someone like The Rambling Man is an expert on the whole flag/MOS thing though, so I've pinged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I am the MOSboss. Especially at flags. If people are actively editing against the advice of MOS then they should be advised to desist. I am happy to help in specific instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That part of the MOS has been out of date for a while. You've been told that already. We no longer need to write out country names because the alt-text should take care of that. (On that note, perhaps someone should actually update that part of the MOS.) Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What we can't do is declare a particular bit of MoS out-of-date or otherwise inappropriate just because one random editor says so. If you believe that there's no longer any need to write out country names at first use, please propose that change at the relevant MoS talk page. If you achieve a new consensus for that change, all well and good. But until someone gets that change implemented, we go by the existing site-wide consensus as reflected in the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2:, @Smartyllama: Firstly, we are using flag icons in lists and tables. It clearly says on MoS Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. So because we use flag icons in the tables, we don't need to use the country name. A squad list, doesn't require a country name next to a flag, because it's a list! So we already have a derived MoS on how to use flag icons in a lists and tables. It's the Colour blind access part which is out of date, not the format. There is nothing against using flag icons in the way we are using them in the Football project, just some people have completely miss-read the process of use. Govvy (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ICON actually says: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox. This should only be done if the icon has been used previously with an explanation of its purpose.. so the flag usage DOES need to be explained, and further down :If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. What is this whole argument if not controversial? Spike 'em (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Explanation is to represent a players national affiliation. We have setup a standard practice of doing that. You're trying to read too deep into the MoS and missing the other key points. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You said : So because we use flag icons in the tables, we don't need to use the country name. which is false. MOS:ICON says each flag must be attributed to a country somewhere before it is used without a name anywhere else. Spike 'em (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And it is attributed, by the alt-text. Smartyllama (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Which bit of MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names, the opening sentence, that says The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details, followed by a link to an example that clearly writes the country name out as a visible word, readable without access to any technological assistance, suggests that the existence of alt text is enough? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, was about to quote the same. As mentioned, the example in that section says that {{flag}} should be used in the first instance and that {{flagicon}} will suffice for subsequent uses. (It then uses an out of date example, so I've asked for that to be updated.) Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheFinalBall is not a reliable source

Please can somebody review/revert the edits of 193.117.153.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring and insisting on using TheFinalBall as a source for non-league player stats? I've reached 3RR at Bradley Bubb. GiantSnowman 09:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've explained to them why TheFinalBall isn't RS, pointed out where they'd misunderstood its figures (which are all comps on the front page, you have to click through to each individual season to get stats by competition), and changed Bradley Bubb's infobox per Soccerway. And suggested to them they go back and change any others where they've used TheFinalBall. But I'm not doing it for them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User has been banned, so you might need to fix his broken bits. Koncorde (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted his stats update, but added a source at Kavan Cotter for the transfer. GiantSnowman 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The most valuable or Xth valuable per Y source

Recently, an editor Retrofan781, keep on adding "most valuable player in the world" statement to Kylian Mbappé by citing International Centre for Sports Studies, which had reverted by me and Mattythewhite. The edit summary of Mattythewhite was "The lead isn't an appropriate place for this content". While for myself, it is not appropriate to insert such content to main body either, as CIES had a questionable notability, as well as WP:UNDUE. Any one want to form a consensus to remove (or form a consensus to add it) such statement in A. Mbappé, B. all article? Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A blanket ban of it isn't a good idea, it's possible that you could add the source with commentary but I don't recommend it. Certainly not in the lede, certainly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are countless wiki football pages that cite the CIES Football Observatory in body and lede. This isn't new. If, all of a sudden, somebody thinks CIES has "questionable notability" or isn't "appropriate" then the burden is on them to back up their claims with evidence. I have tried reaching out to Matthew hk and Mattythewhite on their talk pages after they reverted my edits. Still haven't received an explanation. BTW the phrase "most valuable player" came verbatim from the Forbes and Goal articles I cited in the edit. Retrofan781 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering player value is quite subjective and clearly changanle, it really shouldn't be in the lede of any articles. If it is, it should probably be removed. I've not looked at the source in question, but the term itself doesn't seem Lede worthy at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Most rankings and awards in sports are subjective and changeable, including Ballon d'Or, FIFA World Player of the Year, even statements like "greatest player of all time", "best player in the world" etc are quite subjective and changeable. Yet they have been used countless times in ledes. Please show me a rule that says ledes shouldn't contain subjective statements. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrofan781: Your claim that you did not receive an explanation from me is not true, see my reply. And you know that as it received a response from you. Anyway, I agree with the reasoning laid out by Matthew hk and Lee Vilenski, that this content should not be included given the questionable notability of CIES and the subjective nature of player values. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite What explanation did I receive from you? The one that you yourself struck out? All you have done is change the goalpost, and refuse to explain your reasoning. In other words, you stated your opinion (blanket statement) while providing no logical explanation for why you deleted my content without following WP:normal protocol. If not, please post a link to said explanation. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the claim that CIES has questionable notability is patently false. CIES is mandated by major organizations like FIFA, UEFA, City Football Group, IOC etc (Source). If CIES studies weren't noteworthy, they wouldn't routinely get published by major outlets like FIFA, UEFA, ESPN, Goal, Forbes, etc. I have already explained this to Matthew hk on his talk page, yet he hasn't responded to any of the points I made (read WP:Discuss with the other party), and continues to present this claim here without providing any facts to support it. Retrofan781 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There would be a very long list of most valuable according to X source. The X could be OPTA, IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, etc., or just according to their actual transfer fee. Some of them have no doubt in notability to put it in main text and notable to add to the lede which lede should always act as a summary of the main text. However, the reporting of CIES' model , sometimes seem a sarcasm manner (See the blog entry of ESPN correspondent), which at least it is not a material on the lede. Moreover, CIES' ranking is dynamic, which is a nightmare if you insist to add it and then update the change in ranking (if any) each month. Based on these reason, CIES' ranking is a trivial content and don't have a merit to add it to the main body of the biographical article. While award (the first, the "most" award, if any) by IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, at least they are static, (the best player award in X year did not change), which may merit to add to "award and honor" section. Matthew hk (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing sarcastic in that ESPN article per se. It just gives a detailed explanation of the computer algorithm CIES uses for transfer values and the different variables that go into it. Not sure what you are trying to say there. If you're trying to imply their rankings aren't perfect, we already knew that (see my response to Lee). Like I told him, no sports rating system is perfect and 100% objective. Doesn't matter if its voter-based, or computer generated, both have subjectivity. You can cherry-pick flaws in any rating system including Ballon d'Or which has tons of news articles criticizing it (for example). So just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean you toss it in the trash. At least with computer ratings they have minimal bias and trend towards objectivity as opposed to human polls which are biased by definition (see Wikipedia:Sports rating system). And please name one wiki policy or guideline that says that only "static" ratings should be allowed in articles and ledes? Sounds like an arbitrary, made-up rule on your part. The fact that computer rankings like CIES, FIFA world rankings etc are more up-to-date and accurate is a pro, not a con. Even subjective statements like "best player in the world according to xyz source" are equally (if not more) changeable. Do you think such statements should be removed from existing ledes of top players too? Why or why not? By your logic, wouldn't they be a "nightmare" to maintain like you suggested (which is a logical fallacy btw, see Wikipedia:Appeal to fear). Lastly, you still haven't explained how this any of what you said shows CIES has questionable notability. Notability means being worthy of attention. ESPN has continued to publish articles citing CIES studies long after the article you linked to was published (as have all other major publications and organizations) so clearly they still think CIES is notable and worthy of attention. So again your logic doesn't follow. And your removal of the CIES studies from the lede altogether is not consistent with wiki guidelines (read WP:Reliable_sources#Scholarship, WP:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and WP:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). Retrofan781 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the addition of this info to be utterly ridiculous. A player isn't worth anything until a team makes a bid for them, not really. Furthermore, these estimated values fluctuate all the time, and different sources can come to different conclusions. There's nothing concrete here whatsoever. – PeeJay 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your concerns have already been addressed above. Your rationale can be applied to statements like "best player in the world" or "best in the world according to xyz source" which are currently used in the ledes of many players. What wiki policy/guideline says articles shouldn't contain content that is subjective or can change with time, even if it came from reputable sources. I'd imagine the vast majority of content on wikipedia is subjective and can fluctuate with time. Whats so "ridiculous" about that? (see Wikipedia:Appeal to ridicule). Retrofan781 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please stop disguising mainspace pages as Wikiproject ones? Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Retrofan781:, You can find news reporting about Ballon d'Or on newspaper from all over the world, but i doubt there are many source reporting CIES (say, 50 countries), especially Mbappé as the most value player by the estimation of CIES. WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE applies. Matthew hk (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Jacksons2006 and User:Matthew111110

See [13] and [14]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

UEFA Super Cup

Folks can I draw your attention to the above, user:DM7SZ is insisting on changing the participants from now-defunct states to the nationality of the successor states. Please check the edit history. I am now at 3RR with them, as well as at the limit of my patience and past my bedtime. Keep an eye on it and a few others in their contributions, doesn't look like they will take the advice, trying to quote UEFA guidelines that don't even support the argument. Crowsus (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That user has done the same with the Champions League articles. I've reverted, but we'll see where he takes it from now. – PeeJay 11:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That is because the facts are that both UEFA and FIFA recognized current member states as successors and inheritors of defunct national records. Paragraph 3 in the Yugoslavia wiki article states that with appropriate sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_national_football_team DM7SZ (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes but at the time they were in the cup they were part of the USSR and Yugoslavia. Which is why is makes sense to link to them instead. Classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And continuing to edit war is not the way to go while a discussion is ongoing. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written to be future proof. All events are written from the time it took place. The WP:MOS is site wide for these sorts of things. (Hopefully someone can find the guideline I'm searching for). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCPLACE is relevant. Hack (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"UEFA and FIFA recognized current member states as successors and inheritors of defunct national records" - exactly. National team records. Not club records. And even with the national team, we don't go back and claim that, for example, Serbia competed in the 1930 World Cup. Historical facts should be reported based on how they stood at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Player editing own article.

What to do with Annette Jacky Messomo. See version 1, before edits, version 2, after edits of an admin (had unsourced info deleted, see talk page for details), version 3, after player edited (just 1 sentence left, see version history). Info: She has 1 cap now for E. Guinea and played the women's champions league. Non notable and delete or restore and improve citations? -Koppapa (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI applies. GiantSnowman 18:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And it would need an OTRS verification to be considered. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

She has a senior international representation, so notable per WP:NFOOTY --SuperJew (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

FC CFR Timișoara

Notable? Sourceable? AfD? DlohCierekim 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcable? Yes - see this. Notable? Based on the claims in the article (if they can be fully verified), yes. GiantSnowman 10:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Watford F.C. history found date

According to Watfords own website the club was found in 1881 as Watford Rovers, so I am confused by the article saying the club was formed in 1891, again the contradictory information, I still don't get how this is a GA article. What should be the correct year? Govvy (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

1898 (not 1891 - the article doesn't mention that date) is the date when two existing clubs merged to form Watford F.C. (as the club's own history actually mentions). I guess it depends which event is considered to be the current club's formation...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994)

Better luck in the second report? Let's see...

can the article be protected please? It continues to be ravaged by vandalism!

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Such reports should be posted at RPP. Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but i could swear i've seen the odd request filed here (filed AND addressed). By the way, more vandalism immediately after my original message. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Other requests being filed here doesn't make it the right thing to do though. ClubOranje^T 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Polana Trzebież

Any Polish experts here? Pretty sure Polana Trzebież is a hoax, at best it is non-notable. None of the wikilinked players (or any wikilinked in previous version) have ever played for this supposed club, and zero web search hits. Just need opinion really whether it qualifies as G3 obvious hoax for CSD, or will need an AfD. ClubOranje^T 11:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but the club doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia/mirror sites. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Runners-up in honours listing

Hi, I had a query regarding an issue I have noticed following the updating of the Jurgen Klopp article. It seems that some managers have various runners-up positions listed in the honours section of their article, e.g. Klopp has several runners-up positions, including the 2017-18 Champions League, alongside the recent 2018-19 Champions League win. However, the majority of other manager articles (e.g. Rafael Benitez, who also won and lost the Champions League final) do not include runners-up positions, only titles won.

My question is - has consensus been established on whether runners-up should be included for managers/players? Personally I would regard an honours section as only including title/trophy wins rather than second places, but appreciate that there'll be other views and that there may already be consensus established on this issue. Regardless, is it not important that consistency be applied to pages? E.g. either to add a runner-up position to Benitez's article, or to remove it from Klopp's article.

Thank you. Vaze50 (talk) 14:24 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, for both players and managers, whenever someone wins an honour the runner-up is removed. So in Klopp's case, he should only have the honour of having won the CL, without the runner-up. However, until yesterday, it would have been correct to keep his runner-up honours. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Must admit, that's one I hadn't come across. There is no consensus: search the archives of this talk page (there's a search box at the top) for confirmation. Some editors don't consider runners-ups as honours at all ever. Some allow runners-ups in cup competitions but not leagues. Some editors adopt what it says on the suggested layout for clubs, which is "including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Some editors equate honour to physical medal, which produces a situation where coming second in the English lower divisions isn't an honour but coming sixth or seventh in the same division and winning an end-of-season promotion game is. Personally, I prefer to include both wins and runners-ups unless there's a lot, in which case use your editorial discretion. Don't suppose this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I just look at GA/FAs to base my decisions. For example, Messi's achievements are in the format I presented above: include runners-up until the player wins the competition, at that point remove runners-up and include only winner. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't class a runner-up as an honour at all. It equates to "best finish" to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I for one have never heard of any consensus to do what Nehme1499 just suggested. If there are a lot of honours like on Cristiano Ronaldo then you don't need to list runner-ups, but he has another article for his career achievements where those runner up medals should be listed. As for players and managers who don't have a lot of honours I don't see a problem with listing the runner-up medals. What Lee Vilenski suggests actually negates information about reaching a cup final which to a lot of people is still an achievement. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok it seems that I have based my decision exclusively on Messi's page. I wouldn't mind any solution to be honest, though for me it should be either everything (both winner + runner-up) or only winner. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for thoughts, very helpful. Seems clear to me there's no "obvious" answer to this. Looks like there a few options that could be considered: Option 1 - leave to editor discretion; makes it less of an immediate issue, but leads to inconsistency and can cause edit wars etc. Option 2 - everything (winner + runner-up); consistent and provides fuller picture, but perhaps excessive in many cases - are we really going to expand the Alex Ferguson article for instance to include runners-up positions for the FA Community Shield? Option 3 - winner only; consistent, and arguably closer to "honour" definition, but true that cup finalists receive medals etc. Option 4 - compromise of 2 and 3; perhaps include runner-up in a competition if that is the furthest a manager/player has reached, and replace with winner if appropriate. Must admit I'm not sure what the "best" option is, my instinct would probably be 3, but appreciating the points above I wonder if 4 is an appropriate compromise... Vaze50 (talk) 15:54 2 June 2019 (UTC)

- There does need to be a project consensus on this. 1 and 2 are the same, realistically, as editors will just be inclusive. I don't see how finishing second in league 2, for instance is "an honour". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Runners-up honours have been a divisive topic on here for some time, and I don't think there is a definitive answer, but I do feel that the runner-up honour should fall away if the competition is won at a later stage. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that it should follow that a runner-up ceases to be noteworthy if it is later won. I would say it should either be deemed worth including in its own right or it shouldn't.

IMO it depends on the competition. For a one-match super cup like the FA Community Shield, which is barely competitive to begin with, I would only include the winner. For a knock-out competition like the UEFA Champions League or the FA Cup I would include the winner and runner-up. For an international tournament like the FIFA World Cup I would include the winner, runner-up and third place. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Matty. A "Silver" medal received as a runner up for a cup final may be significant, particularly if it was a players only award. However a league runner up, or playoff winner, even if it grants promotion, isn't in the same boat any more than qualifying for a particular round of a competition, or entry to a different cup.

Bad habit is for people to get a bit defensive when it comes to their pet teams or players, and to try and shoe horn into articles every possible title or competition, second or third place, or OPTA stat etc. This causes confusion when two articles no longer match despite having players in the same competition. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Caoimhin Kelleher

Hello all, is Caoimhin Kelleher notable? Thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm not per NFOOTBALL, possibly per GNG if BLP1E doesn't apply. GiantSnowman 19:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

youth cat again, Category:FC Barcelona youth players

Should i start a Cfd for this cat: Category:FC Barcelona youth players. Matthew hk (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 13:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)