Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 147

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Spike 'em in topic Randriamamy
Archive 140←Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150

Suggested improvement to national team tournament format

Latest comment: 3 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion
Further information: Draft:New football tournament match format

First of all, and let me make is clear: Every tournament and national team page will appear exactly as it does now. The objective of the suggested change is reducing edit labor, keeping more pages updated & increase reliability.


Current state of affairs

For every match in every tournament, we create at least 5 almost identical Template:Football box \ Template:Football box collapsible match boxes. 1 in the tournament page, 1 in each national team "Results and fixtures" section and 1 in each of the national teams "Templatonia football team results" page. Each of these boxes needed to be maintained separately and all holding the exact same information, with the exaption of the |result= parameter.


Example
France vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina
  1. 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group D § Matches
  2. France national football team § 2021
  3. France national football team results (2020–present) § 2021
  4. 2020–21 in French football § Group D
  5. Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team § 2021
  6. Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team results (2020–present) § 2021


The suggested change

Create a templated page in the same format of the one used for group tables, but for matches (exampled below). We can create wither one page per tournament, per tournament stage, per group or how ever we can agree to divide the tournament matches. In doing so, we keep all template functionalities we currently have and gain the ability to transclude them into pages. In doing so, updating a match like the one of France vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina would have required just one major edit, instead of 6.


Template example
{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| GER_FRA = {{football box collapsible
| id         = Germany v France
| round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}}
| date       = DATE
| time       = TIME
| score      = SCORE
| report     = REPORT
| team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Germany {{flagdeco|GER}}|{{fb-rt|GER}}}}
| goals1     = SCORER_1
| team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|France}}|{{fb|FRA}}}}
| goals2     = SCORER_2
| stadium    = STADIUM
| location   = LOCATION
| attendance = ATTENDANCE
| referee    = REFEREE
| format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}}
| bg         = {{{bg}}}
| result     = {{{result}}}
| class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}}
| note       = {{small|[[Draft:New football tournament match format|V]] • [[Draft talk:New football tournament match format|T]]}}
}}
| ITA_ESP = {{football box collapsible
| id         = Italy v Spain
| round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}}
| date       = DATE
| time       = TIME
| score      = SCORE
| report     = REPORT
| team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Italy {{flagdeco|ITA}}|{{fb-rt|ITA}}}}
| goals1     = SCORER_1
| team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|Spain}}|{{fb|ESP}}}}
| goals2     = SCORER_2
| stadium    = STADIUM
| location   = LOCATION
| attendance = ATTENDANCE
| referee    = REFEREE
| format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}}
| bg         = {{{bg}}}
| result     = {{{result}}}
| class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}}
| note       = {{small|[[Draft:New football tournament match format|V]] • [[Draft talk:New football tournament match format|T]]}}
}}
}}<noinclude>


Parameters
  • To be set in the template
    • GER_FRA - Section name, the code used to transclude the match.
    • id - Unique anchor to the match. Example: |id="Germany v France"
    • round - The link that will apear on the left hand side of the matchbox box, when wanted.
    • date - Date of the match. Use {{Start date}} (with df=y or mf=y; see: WP:ENGVAR)
    • time - time of the match. Use {{Start date}} (with df=y or mf=y; see: WP:ENGVAR)
    • score - The final score of the match. If the match went into extra time (and possibly penalties) the aet parameter should be set to yes.
    • report - An external link to an official match report or box score. It is important that match information be referenced, so please use this parameter! (See also: Verifiability and No Original Research)
    • team1 and team2 - Typically team1 is the home team. Both should be wikilinked to a team page if there is one.
    • goals1 and goals2 - Goals scored and optionally cards issued. Use {{goal}}, {{yel}}, and {{sent off}} with the last name (or professional name) of the player involved. Create a list (lines starting with *) if multiple players are listed. If a player scores more than one goal (or cards) these can be grouped together so that the player's name only appears once. This is not required though. Preference should be given to listing goals (and cards) in chronological order.
    • location & stadium - If location is not specified, the value of stadium will appear at the top of the far right column "above the fold". If location is specified, then only the location value will appear "above the fold" on the right, and the value of stadium will be shown with the prefix "Stadium:" beside it only when the box score is expanded.
    • attendance - Match attendance as reported in the match report.
    • referee - Name of head referee (wikilinked only if there is a page for the referee or you intend to create it soon). The referee's national federation in parenthesis is optional but recommended when the box score is for an international competition.
    • format - Automatic parameter, expands "round" width when it is used.
    • note - Adds V & T links as notes.
  • To be set by the caller (optional)
    • bg - Use this param to specify a custom background color (ignored if result is specified). Use RRGGBB values without the # sign. Example: |bg=99C0B0
    • result - Adjusts background color to indicate win (green), draw/tie (yellow), loss (red) or void/postponement (grey). Possible values: W, L, T, D, V or P. See the Legend section below when using this parameter.
    • class - Use this if you do not want the template collapsed. The options are "uncollapsed" (removal of collapse function), "collapsible" (box can be collapsed, but by default is not) and "collapsible collapsed" (box is initially collapsed). If unused, the parameter will default to "uncollapsed". Example: |class=collapsible
    • team1 and team2 - Allows to unlink team1 and \ or team2.


Usage
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}}
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|ITA_ESP}}


Result

Draft:New football tournament match format Draft:New football tournament match format

Usage examples
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"}} — Makes transcluded box "collapsible collapsed"

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=W}} — Indicates Win

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=D}} — Indicates Draw

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|result=L}} — Indicates loss

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|bg=EEEEEE}} — Inserts background color

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|class="collapsible collapsed"|round=1}} — Shows "round"

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team1=1}} — Neutralizes team1 link

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team2=1}} — Neutralizes team2 link

Draft:New football tournament match format

Conclusion

This format will allow us to keep information updated with less work and less code, while making it easier to make sure that the "report" of each game is a live link, as they will be concentrated in one place. With all template functionalities staying intact, I believe this will could make tournament easier to maintain. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Comments
I would suggest waiting until the current TfD on one of you previous and very similar suggestions has been concluded before suggesting another. Those national team results articles you've quoted don't meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST and should be updated accordingly. The most recent discussion (as far as I'm aware) on the issue resulted in consensus to use tables and not football boxes (available here). I think it's admirable that you are trying to make things more efficient for editors but any new template should first meet the established policies and guidelines and I'm afraid this one doesn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion that you've linked did not reach a consensus - just fyi. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It didn't result in consensus to use the table originally suggested but it does say: No consensus ... unless the table is edited to include all the info presented in the template (my emphasis) which means consensus to use a modified version. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Though a lot of those approving of the table format were solely in favour of it to be used in specific national team results pages, not on the national team pages itself therefore an improved version of the template is still useful. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, an accepted table showing all of the same information as the template has yet to be produced. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The table that is now used at Argentina national football team results (2020–present) has been edited to include all the information in the footballbox template. It works as a compromise so I see no reason why it couldn't become an accepted version. But yes, this part would only affect the results pages and not the parent article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: Without even addressing that this table doesn't go against WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST, it DOES comply completely with the Manual of style for national teams. By your arguments in the previous discussion, that is reason enough to use it. If you'd like to start talking about merits now and not just precedents, that's fine too. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If you had read my previous comment, you would see I said this part would only affect the results pages. I'm not arguing about the main pages, but if the suggested usage is for lists of national team results then I would be against because it does not meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST. It is specifically mentioned at WP:WHENTABLE that lists of sports results should be recorded in tables and the process of promoting Gibraltar national football team results to a featured list resulted in a change from the football box template to tables (available here). Keep it uncollapsed and then at least readers can access the information but no one has ever been able to demonstrate to me that the football box fits with MOS:LIST. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
You are taking the discussion to the wrong place. This project currently uses Template:Football box & Template:Football box collapsible. This suggestion will keep things as they are visually while providing several advantages. Please keep the discussion within this scope. Deancarmeli (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is no acceptable use for football boxes but, essential, your proposal is that we should use them for x and I've explained why that would go against the established policies and guidelines as well as previous consensus. If that's not "within this scope" then I'm not sure what is. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: Enough.

You are being destructive, not constructive.

You can't just claim policies are on your side. Per WP:JUSTAPOLICY: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy."

More over, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS: "...in airing their complaints, they frequently miss out one crucial detail: Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started.". This is a small step to get Wikipedia better. it improves upon what exists now while keeping its appearance. All your objections to that appearance should be made in a different discussion that you are welcome to start. This template won't make this project perfect. It aims at improving upon the current state of affairs, with a small change the will bring some benefits with it. Keep it to this scope.

Finally, stop holding the stick on both ends. You can't claim that everything must be done accordance to the MoS [1] and then argue here that the MoS shouldn't be adhered to when it specifically calls to use the matchbox templates. This is simply disruptive. Deancarmeli (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I apologise if my tone has come across as unconstructive? It's not always easy to get it right in text and that was not my intention. I accept I haven't properly asserted why it would be against WP:ACCESS but I have explained why it would contravene MOS:LIST: It is specifically mentioned at WP:WHENTABLE that lists of sports results should be recorded in tables. I also accept I could have explained this better, MOS:TABLES is a specific consideration included in MOS:LIST and there are no accepted list formats that are similar to the football box style. I think I have been clear though that I am not arguing against the MOS for national team articles (this part would only affect the results pages), I am arguing that this shouldn't be used for lists of national team results as proposed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem with citing a page like MOS:TABLES is that when all you hold is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The importance of actually linking to the policies you're mentioning, in addition to quoting from them, is that your arguments can be refuted. Take WP:WHENTABLE for example: "Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.". In our case, the use of a list of templates is clear, clean and conveys relative information with an option to expand upon it. it is similar to "Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries; if appropriate, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to read a full, detailed article corresponding to a concise table entry.", again from WP:WHENTABLE.

In our case, not just that the non-existent table will bee seen without its header for many entries, This existing template format build upon a current format, and have some benefits — including reducing edit labor, keeping more pages updated & increasing reliability — that you simply insist upon ignoring.

So please, if you insist upon taking part in this discussion: Stay within the scope of this discussion. This is the 3rd time that I'm asking that of you in this very discussion. If you cite policies, link to them and quote from them. Otherwise it could be seen as WP:LIARLIARPANTSONFIRE. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play. The use of a list of templates which are autocollapsed is not clear. Per ACCESS Auto-collapsed (pre-collapsed) elements should not be used to hide content in the article's main body. Why have a list of football results if you're going to hide the attendance, the goalscorers, the stadium etc? That is the main body of the list so it only acts as a barrier between the reader and the information. (I would however presume from this that the collapsible format would be acceptable on the national team article as it is not the main body hence its inclusion in the MOS). The football box template renders as a table so is subject to MOS:TABLES and, as a result, Table captions and column and row headers should be succinct and self explanatory and used on all data tables. The football box has no row or column headers so it only conveys relative information to people who understand football. We shouldn't assume that everyone who reads Wikipedia knows about football and knows what each element refers to. Per WP:WHENTABLE, the specific example given for the appropriate use of a Multi-column sortable standard table is a list of sporting results. What makes football special that we shouldn't utilise what has been highlighted as appropriate for articles which include sports results? There are also a number of appropriate list formats listed at MOS:LIST but none are like the football box format (See list styles for the full list). I fully agree that we should Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information after all. However, the consensus following this discussion is to include all the information that the football box template has parameters for. As an ACCESS concern, it had been pointed out to me previously, and this is a few years ago, that screen readers didn't work as well with the football box as they do with a regular table. I don't know if this has been resolved since or if there is a way to fix it so I would appreciate any further information on that. Whether or not the football box is "clean" or not is purely opinion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland:I'm sorry, but this is clearly a WP:DONTGETIT ("Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is.").

This discussion is NOT about Football boxes vs. tables.

This discussion is about whether we should keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times. This is the discussion, and nothing else. I can't state it any clearer. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And I have told you why it's inappropriate to use football boxes in the way you are proposing. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: WP:READFIRST: "Familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating makes it easier to build consensus." If you would have looked at the provided links in the discussion opening message, you would have seen that the usage of Football boxes is the current norm & part of the Manual of style for National teams. They are also used in other pages i the same manner. Now, please, for at least the fourth time in this very discussion, stick to the issue this discussion was opened for, and to the ONLY question in it:

Should we keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times? Deancarmeli (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I've said three times now, I've argued against using this template in national team results articles. So no, we shouldn't be creating 6 identical Football boxes because two of them shouldn't exist in the first place. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to open up a separate discussion about that. It has nothing to do with the discussion I've started here. Let's follow WP:EXHAUST and "Keep discussions focused". Your wish to change the current state in one way has noting to do with my suggestion to change it in another. This discussion is about my suggestion. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Argentina national football team results (2020–present) is not good in mobile view and in my opinion might violate WP:ACCESS for mini readers. Deancarmeli, seriously, I am getting fed up with all your templates now, it's starting to bug me out! Give it a rest please. Govvy (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Govvy: Thank you for your constructive comment.

      WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "It's annoying."

      WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions."

      Please, answer this discussion main question: Should we keep creating 6 identical Football boxes like we do now, or create 1 Football box and transclude it 6 times? or stay out of it. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1: Stop pinging me,
2: You have the wrong end of the stick and I really don't think you have listened to other people. Now I am going to watch the second half of the England game! Govvy (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This allows editors to update and maintain alomst exact same information in one place instead of six. Regarding the comments by Stevie fae Scotland - they are arguing how the match should be formatted on the page and not the subject of discussion here which is should the template be implemented. Currently, the six pages Deancarmeli linked above in the example all display the match in the footballbox format, and that is the reason I assume they formatted it in the footballbox way. The question isn't about the format, but if the information should be in a template which can be called on six pages with minor differences or if the information should be duplicated in six different pages. Regarding the format, that is a separate discussion, and anyways implementing such a template would actually help change the format if needed and keep pages through Wikipedia more consistent to the format. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to national team tournament format — updated

Added v·t·e boxes to matches, to make editing easier. Current code example:

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| GER_FRA = {{football box collapsible
| id         = Germany v France
| round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}}
| date       = DATE
| time       = TIME
| score      = SCORE
| report     = REPORT
| team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Germany {{flagdeco|GER}}|{{fb-rt|GER}}}}
| goals1     = SCORER_1
| team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|France}}|{{fb|FRA}}}}
| goals2     = SCORER_2
| stadium    = STADIUM
| location   = LOCATION
| attendance = ATTENDANCE
| referee    = REFEREE
| format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}}
| bg         = {{{bg}}}
| result     = {{{result}}}
| class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}}
| note       = {{navbar|Draft:New football tournament match format|mini=y}}
}}
| ITA_ESP = {{football box collapsible
| id         = Italy v Spain
| round      = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|ROUND}}
| date       = DATE
| time       = TIME
| score      = SCORE
| report     = REPORT
| team1      = {{#if:{{{team1|}}}|Italy {{flagdeco|ITA}}|{{fb-rt|ITA}}}}
| goals1     = SCORER_1
| team2      = {{#if:{{{team2|}}}|{{Flagu|Spain}}|{{fb|ESP}}}}
| goals2     = SCORER_2
| stadium    = STADIUM
| location   = LOCATION
| attendance = ATTENDANCE
| referee    = REFEREE
| format     = {{#if:{{{round|}}}|1|}}
| bg         = {{{bg}}}
| result     = {{{result}}}
| class      = {{#if:{{{class|}}}|{{{class}}}|uncollapsed}}
| note       = {{navbar|Draft:New football tournament match format|mini=y}}
}}
}}

New look: 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}}

Draft:New football tournament match format

All else stayed as it was. Thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


Feature Added
Now, when using |team1=1 or |team2=1 the local time will be added to the "tournament time". This could be used to show local time only, if a discussion will suggest it.
Examples:
{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA}}

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team1=1}} — Neutralizes team1 link & Adds team1 local time

Draft:New football tournament match format 

{{Draft:New football tournament match format|GER_FRA|team2=1}} — Neutralizes team2 link & Adds team2 local time

Draft:New football tournament match format

Deancarmeli (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolfo Leite

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Even though he played pro football (added refs today), does this guy merit a WP article? TWO Liga Portugal 2 matches (one as a substitute), and he did not even play all that much in the third tier or below that! In my humble opinion, does not pass WP:NOTABILITY by a mile, but i could be wrong of course. It's only one of thousands of articles created by User:Alexanderalgrim, who since he's here (ten years and counting i think) refuses to engage in conversation with anyone, even though his talkpage is overflowing with messages.

If i was wrong in removing the tags even after adding the sources, please accept my apologies. Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

He has presumed notability under WP:NFOOTY as Liga Portugal 2 is fully professional. That notability still has to be established to satisfy WP:GNG though and it doesn't look like it has as yet. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree, WP:GNG is most important- we have deleted many articles that scrape by WP:NFOOTY for a few appearances, but clearly fail WP:GNG. On a cursory look, this player doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the article being kept, obviously passes NFOOTY on top of a normal semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Name format of location of club vs. name of club

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

I came across an interesting situation and wanted to get more input. In the article page of the club Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C., the name of the city is spelled differently than the city's article page where it is Beersheba (which apparently has been discussed many times on the talk page). In pages relating to the football club (such as Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C., 2015–16 Beitar Jerusalem F.C. season, 2016–17 Hapoel Be'er Sheva season, 2021–22 Israeli Premier League) should we use the spelling Beersheba or Be'er Sheva? --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would use the article title, so Tadamon Sour, for e.g., not Tadamon Tyre. Nehme1499 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that SuperJew is asking which name the articles should use when referring specifically to the city, rather than how it is written within the name of the club. So, should it say "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Be'er Sheva" or "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Beersheba". I don't think the suggestion was to alter how the name of the club is written..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ahh got it. I would still use the article titles (so, Tadamon Sour and Tyre, or Al Ahli Saida SC and Sidon). Nehme1499 13:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Use the proper article link, rather than a piped one with a varied spelling, per WP:PIPING - so "Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. is a football club based in Beersheba". GiantSnowman 14:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct, you wouldn't say "FK Austria Wien is a football club based in Wien."--Ortizesp (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that the problem lies with the page name of Beersheba, and that a changed of it should be (again) argued, but whilst it is a cross Wiki problem – we shouldn't ignore the page's current title. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem. The way we refer to clubs is entirely separate from the way we refer to cities. We had this issue back when Kyiv was still referred to as Kiev. The club refers to itself as Dynamo Kyiv on its own website, so there was a discrepancy, but it's not a problem because the club name is not dictated by the way we spell the name of the city (nor is the city name dictated by the way we refer to the club). – PeeJay 22:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not our case. Both the club and municipality use Be'er Sheva, it is Wiki that uses Beersheba. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This question often arises in German football articles. For example, 1. FC Nürnberg is based in Nuremberg. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And Bayern München is based in Munich, Bavaria. Clog Wolf Howl 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clog Wolf: Though Bayern München is written and referred to as FC Bayern Munich or Bayern Munich on Wikipedia. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers! My meaning of the question was indeed as ChrisTheDude wrote. I understand from the comments that should use the page name as it currently is - so right now "Beersheba". I don't intend to open the debate of what the name should be, whoever wants to is welcome to on the article's talk page. Pinging מחסל האגדות, who I had the misunderstanding with. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The name Be'er Sheva is variant of Latin to English, Beersheba is a variant of Hebrew to English. Both uses are correct. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Be'er Sheva is an English transcript of the city's Hebrew name, but that is irrelevant for this discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
What are you on about? Maybe you need to read Romanization of Hebrew. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I have. It lists the "Common Israeli" & the Academy of the Hebrew Language to use "v" for "ב‎", and the other sources to use "b" whilst the IPA is [v] for all. Still, after we had fun, it has nothing to do with this discussion that isn't about how the city's page should be titled. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe you have confusing between the Bet and Vet usage. There is the different of the dot (sounding), where as Latin uses a translation from Vet, while the English uses the Bet. Bet (letter), You should bare in mind I am Jewish, have been taught Hebrew and a little Latin. Not to mention I lived in Beersheba for a year! Govvy (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO, for sharing this personal "knowledge". As This is irrelevant for this discussion, I will WP:DROPTHESTICK. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Use the name of the club when referring to the club and the place name when referring to the place. Like Boreham Wood F.C. who play in Borehamwood. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

212.237.121.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited in fifty-eight changes that replace any external links to iraqi-football.com with ifa.iq. At a quick look into both of these websites, I cannot determine which one of these is supposedly more legitimate than the other. They claimed in a singular edit summary that ifa.iq is the "official website", but I was hoping someone more familiar with sportsball than I could endorse this mass change. See also their talk page, where I initially attempted to reach out to them, to no real avail besides the edit summary linked earlier. Perryprog (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that ifa.iq is the official Iraq Football Association website. Nehme1499 13:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Perryprog (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Brian Calabrese

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I can't see it, but does this one pass WP:NFOOTY at all?? Govvy (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, six games in the current 2021–22 Liga Primera de Nicaragua. Nehme1499 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't think that's FPL? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
True, I misread. He has only played in semi-pro/amateur leagues in Argentina, so he doesn't pass NFOOTY. Nehme1499 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there any way of checking if he played a game for Atlético Pantoja? The Dominican Republic top tier is fully pro, apparently Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
He has only played 2018 Caribbean Club Championship games, against clubs in non-fully pro leagues (GSA). Nehme1499 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it could be argued that La Nueva and Interior show GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a reminder that we're close to hitting 20% at The 1000 Destubbing Challenge. If anyone wanted to give a hand it would be appreciated :) Nehme1499 18:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Junior/youth trophies on senior articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello there, I just wondered why some national teams randomly have Olympic and Mediterranean Games medals listed on their articles? Spain national football team as an example got honours from 3 Mediterranean Games and 4 medals from the Olympics listed. As far as I know football at the Mediterranean Games are for youth teams and Olympics became a U-tournament from the 1992 edition and onwards. Shouldn't all the Mediterranean medals be removed and 3 of the 4 Olympic medals as well? I might be wrong here, but as far as I have researched, these are not medals that should be on the senior squad's article. Italy national football team got some as well, while some other senior squad articles don't. It seems very random. Speun (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Depends if those medals were won when the tournament was for senior sides, or after it became strictly for youth teams only. Nehme1499 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with going through potential hoaxes in stale userspace drafts

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help me go through these userspace drafts of Special:Contributions/JackWoodley93 and Special:Contributions/JASWiki. I came across JackWoodley93 with Sylhet United F.C, which I speedy nominated as a hoax. Checking the user's contributions, I see some of the pages were moved to JASWiki's userspace. With JASWiki, I've found hoax userspace material made by this user on places. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, hoaxes aren't allowed in userspace. So far, I've found several hoaxes for these users and speedy nominated them. The football list is:

If anyone could help out, like the last time, I'd appreciate the help. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The East Ham one is definitely a total hoax, no such club exists and the text is mostly copied from Tower Hamlets F.C. The East Grinstead one is a copy of the existing article on East Grinstead Town F.C. with a little bit of fake info thrown in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Dhanda and Merovci exist but have fake stats. Kolyugev and Eloundou are hoaxes. Dougal18 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and all look to be false. GiantSnowman 11:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Blimey, what a load of crap to go through, the user should be banned from wikipedia as well. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: You know, this issue feels like it really should be brought to the WP:AN board. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: The first user had been alrrady blocked for a different reason. The second user is inactive. I'd be more concerned if they were active, then WP:AN would be more appropriate in my opinion. However, as this isnt the first time I've found mass hoaxes about football in userspace, that might be an option. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Update: Thank you everyone for looking into these pages. I see that most of them are deleted. I also found Special:Contributions/MysticNinjaWiki edit multiple pages by the first user. Luckily, it's only two pages. It does make me wonder if anyone else had edited these user pages. Sad to see more footy hoaxes :/--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we use Eloratings?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So I've been looking around through a few national team result lists (mainly Oceania teams), and some sources have eloratings.net in them. For me, I don't think EloRatings is that reliable. The only reason is that status of some games can be incorrect for some teams which their association has even fixed themselves and number of matches played. For example, EloRatings says England as 1,085 games played whereas RSSSF and EnglandStats.com both say 1,024 which is the number recognised by the English FA.

Or the fact that Cook Islands played a game against New Caledonia in the South Pacific Games "competition" that is considered fictional by the RSSSF therefore not counting, whereas EloRatings counts it as a "friendly" on a different date. The only reason for this is that this is clear in New Caledonia's list, but not Cook Island's list. This also shows that lists can be incomplete or just completely wrong. For me I would say RSSSF does a fantastic job of keeping track of official A matches for every association's national teams and we should keep using only that source + other match reports for any recognised international match instead of EloRatings. FastCube (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF doesn't have complete lists for all national teams, though. Nehme1499 08:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Elo does often include matches that aren't considered A internationals but that doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. There are mistakes on RSSSF but it is rightly a reliable source. The main reason I use Elo is that it contains an up to date list of matches in chronological order and for a number of countries, the RSSSF lists stop in the mid-2000s. The Cook Islands list for example stops in 2004. Editors need to make a judgement call sometimes based on the sources they have and, on this occasion, those matches were included (it was done over 18 months ago for both and I honestly can't recall why they were included).
I think you're right to highlight the examples you've given though because their inclusion is dubious. I recently removed a match between Chile and Tahiti from the Tahitian page because its status was dubious so there's no reason we can't update and improve these lists when there are questions over the status of a match. I didn't realise there could be a connection between the fictional 1985 South Pacific Mini Games tournament (which obviously isn't included in these lists) and the 1995 friendly between the Cook Islands and New Caledonia. It does seem plausible that those two could play a warmup friendly in French Polynesia a few days before a tournament in the same territory. The 1985 South Pacific Mini Games took place in the Cook Islands as well so that makes me think the two matches are unconnected even though the score is the same. It is also plausible that this match (and others on Elo that aren't on RSSSF) took place between full international teams but record keeping wasn't deemed important because it was only a friendly and the only thing known is the date, score and location. Even RSSSF doesn't have full details of the 1971 South Pacific Games for example so it may not be that simple. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that Eloratings doesn't really show full correct info, but should be prefered to use RSSSF as the main source is what I meant. Also RSSSF could be helpful with list before they become FIFA-recognized nations which is then clear on the status of games. It can show those games before the FIFA affiliation so it doesn't matter if the list stops near the 2000s and all OFC teams are affiliated until 1999. What I mean is that before nations are FIFA-recognised (which means FIFA controls their statuses), it's up to the association if matches counted. Unfortunately there is no clear info for this (except New Zealand) and the closest thing is RSSSF (or Elo if it's not shown/unclear). Now, I do check two different pages: The match list or the competition page itself. I go for the one which is the last updated which could mean more clear info. We can use Elo but maybe just be careful of a few mistakes in it that really confuse the database. If both sources have the same amount of games, it's clear but almost all of them aren't. I think the information included in EloRatings is fine, except the status. I figured that RSSSF should be the only back-up plan to save Elo's lists.FastCube (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fully agree, RSSSF should be the main source. If there are other matches that you're unsure of then flag them up on talk pages (I have all the Oceania ones on my watchlist so at the very least I can add my thoughts). If there are any that you are sure shouldn't be included, just take them out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ben Brereton

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to remind people that this article should not use excessive usage of the name Díaz at this moment. Soccerbase plus his social media still has himself as Ben Brereton however many edits recently includes the addition of his mother's maiden name. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability of F.C. Clivense

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, writing here to ask about the notability of F.C. Clivense. Somebody has created an article about this football club, founded by a former Chievo player and director, which aims to be an informal successor of A.C. ChievoVerona (which, for the record, has not folded yet, despite having been excluded from Serie B, hence the naming difference) and is going to play Terza Categoria, at the very bottom of Italian amateur football. I personally think it is not worth of having its own article, due to the extremely low level it plays and the fact it is a club with no history at all. Thoughts? (Feel free to name it for deletion, if you think it is a good idea, of course.) --Angelo (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I also believe it not to be notable, yet. If and when the club buys the license off of A.C. ChievoVerona, then we can create the article (or expand ChievoVerona). Nehme1499 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Clivense. --Angelo (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

One-club man

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I know that a player is still a one-club man if he has played for the B team of the club he represents. However, is a player still a one-club man if he played for a "feeder" or "affiliate" team? Examples are Ray Gaddis who played for Reading United AC, an affiliate of the Philadelphia Union, and Inaki Williams who played for CD Basconia, a feeder team for Athletic Bilbao. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a separate club. GiantSnowman 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
If it's a separate club that is just 'affiliated' where they have a partnership (like send us your young players who need time), I'd say no. If it's a team such as Fort Lauderdale CF which is 100% the B-team of Inter Miami CF / Real Monarchs which are the B team of Real Salt Lake / Tacoma Defiance (Seattle Sounders FC) / North Texas SC (FC Dallas), but they just wanted to call the B-team something else, then I'd say yes. A good determinant is probably are they eligible for a domestic cup (B teams usually are not allowed). If they are, it's a separate club, if not it's the same club. For example, the clubs I mentioned are not allowed to enter the U.S. Open Cup (the US version of the FA Cup/Copa del Rey/etc), whereas a club like Colorado Springs Switchbacks who is only an affiliate of Colorado Rapids not a direct reserve club is allowed to enter it. RedPatch (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Giuliano Maiorana

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, so two IPs claiming to be him and his daughter keep changing two things:
1. His nationality is changed from English→Italian (saying "although born in England [Giuliano] does not class himself as English. His parents were both Italian and he has an Italian passport" and "doesn’t own an English passport.")
2. His occupation at the time he signed for Histon F.C. is changed from working in a bakery→a clothes shop.

A reference has since been added to the header to support him being English but it only refers to him as "Cambridge-born." Interestingly though that source says he worked "hairdressing for eight months" then in an "Italian fashion shop called "Giulios"", not a bakery. Can someone resolve this please? 20:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The last time that article was edited was three months ago. Is this really an issue? – PeeJay 20:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The IPs started making these edits in 2016 and have continued in 2017, 2020 and this year. So no, it's not an ongoing edit war but it stands to reason they'll try again. 21:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This interview seems to be useful. He states: "And on the pitch I would be 'beaten up', also because I was Italian". It also confirms that he worked in a clothing shop. Nehme1499 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, that would make two sources where he maintains he worked in a shop for Italian fashion items but the article currently says bakery based on a newspaper report from 1988 (ref no.4). And which nationality should the page reflect in your opinions? Thanks. 23:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be best to leave out his nationality from the opening sentence. He was born in England to Italian parents, so it doesn't seem easy to distill his nationality down to a single word. I would hazard that him saying "I would get beaten up because I was Italian" is a comment on his heritage rather than an explicit comment about how he sees his national identity. – PeeJay 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
He is English per this. GiantSnowman 13:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Raheem Sterling is also Jamaican per that site. If it is a reliable source replace the second ref with it (which just calls him "Cambridge-born"). In the interview Nehme found he's refered to as Italian and refers to others as English:
"I wanted to reach Serie A, play for the national team. I loved Italian football and when they asked me which national team I would choose in the event of a call-up, I replied that I didn't see myself with another shirt other than the blue one."
What about his occupation before his signing? 14:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For players who were born in one country and played for another national team, we often just omit the nationality. Can't we just do that here? "Maiorana (born date) is a former footballer. Born in England with Italian ancestry, he played for ManU." Could be an easy compromise. RedPatch (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Because the Italian ancestry in the lede violates WP:MOSETHNICITY. He was born and raise din England, sources say he was English - does it matter that he bigs up his Italian heritage? GiantSnowman 15:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that not all countries have jus soli. Plus, we wouldn't omit the nationality of Thiago Alcântara or Raheem Sterling, for example. Nehme1499 15:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
From the same source: "Maiorana, before settling permanently in the United Kingdom, lived in the Altirpino for a few years: "From 1977 to 1981. We returned to England a few months after the earthquake". Of course, he never played at national level. 15:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So whats the resolution to these, nationality and occupation before signing?
Ref 2 on the page supports clothes shop and ref 4 bakery. this unsourced interview also supports clothes shop. 11:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: occupation, if it's disputed, why not just leave it out? It's not really a big deal exactly what he did for a living - maybe just say "In 1987, he was playing Sunday League football when he signed for Eastern Counties League club Histon"? (albeit worded in such a way that it doesn't sound like he signed his contract with Histon while literally on the pitch in a game......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Good idea, could you change it or tell me how it should be worded please?
Lastly, what to do about his nationality? Thanks 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I would omit simply because we don't have a reliable source stating whether he is either English, Italian or both. I would then write a sentence to the effect of "Maiorana was born in England to Italian parents." Nehme1499 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That's the first sentance of the "career" section, I don't know if it's needed in the lede as well but what about omitting where in Italy his parents were from? Because I don't know if the source is reliable and it feels like excessive trivia.
And in response to what ChrisTheDude said does anyone know the right way to reword it without implying he was signed while playing a game? That would be everything. 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the nationality from the lede since 3 of you suggested it with only 1 disagreeing. Lastly any answers to the question above? Thanks. 01:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "He had been playing in a recreational Sunday League football league, before joining ECL club Histon in the summer of 1987"? (The article reference is from December 1988 and says he signed 18 months earlier putting it around June/July 1987) RedPatch (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

French and Portuguese sources for UEFA Euro 2016 Final please!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, I'm looking for decent French/Portuguese language coverage of the UEFA Euro 2016 Final? My French is passable, so my priority request for help is with the Portuguese sources. Ideally something from the build-up, perhaps something of the main match incidents, and certainly the reaction to the game. Any takers? Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Alpha Oumar Sow (Senegalese footballer)

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. Can someone check the dates in the infobox for Alpha Oumar Sow (Senegalese footballer)? I'm unsure. Secondly, could anyone find where/what Sow is doing now? Is he still pro? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The years seem to be in line with NFT's info. Nehme1499 07:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Why did you move the articles, Nehme? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Because it's preferred to use the year of birth as a disambiguator for footballers, rather than the nationality (which isn't as stable of a determinant). Someone could have double-nationality, or could have his nationality status changed; the date of birth, on the other hand, always remains the same. Nehme1499 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Both players have already played for their respective national teams, and will never be able to change... I don't understand your argument here. We have always used nationality as the first disambiguator if players are from different countries. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman, Robby.is.on, RedPatch, Spiderone, Angelo, and PeeJay: Pinging other potential contributors. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I know from past Rename Requests over the past year, this community has been going with (footballer, born XXXX) as the norm rather than (XYZian footballer) due to the potential for representation switches and/or edit-wars (player hasn't represented a team and is a dual-national and two people want to each change it to their country, which is a bit subjective, while birth year is completely objective and unchangeable). I've been going along with this as the status quo in how I've named articles. I do see the merits of the latter though (nationality) and it probably does make for better differentiation as someone is more likely to recognize someone's nationality in a search rather than their birth year. There are definitely pros and cons for each method. I have no strong feelings either way and will go with whatever the consensus is. RedPatch (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what the naming convention is but I think DOB is better. If another notable Senegalese or Guinean Alpha Oumar Sow comes along then you'll end up being forced to rename them all to reflect year of birth anyway. It would be better to just go with year of birth from the beginning with Alpha Oumar Sow being preserved as a dab page with their current nationality mentioned there. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The naming convention for sports people (WP:NCSP) has nationality listed above year of birth. I don't know if that's the preferential order or if it's just the way it is listed but it is phrased in such a way that I would think nationality should be the primary disambiguator and year of birth is a secondary disambiguator. I don't have any preference though, they are both useful depending on the context. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Since we can evaluate case by case, let's not get fussed. Per WP:NCSP nationality is ranked above birth year, and a person is more likely to recognize a player per nationality than birth year. I think that for the Alpha Oumar Sow players, making an argument that they could switch nationality is ridiculous, since both have already played competetively for their respective national teams; and the probability of a new player from Guinea/Senegal to be called Alpha Oumar Sow and fulfilling WP:NFOOTY requirements is very low too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Youssef Darbaki

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The Youssef Darbaki article discusses a supposed former international footballer, but even the article itself now says "this claim cannot be proven" and that a claim to be a professional club footballer "can also not be confirmed". Right now the article cites no reliable sources about Darbaki at all (which alone makes it a WP:BLPSOURCES problem). The article was created in 2008, and shortly after was the subject of this discussion. Unfortunately all the references found there are now dead links, except for this story, which evidences only that he later became a high school football coach. It strikes me that, as it exists now, the article gives no reason to reasonably support the claim that Darbaki passes WP:NFOOTY. I'm inclined to sent it to AfD, but I thought I'd ask here first, in the hope that y'all have more up-to-date references that can shed light on this player and whatever notability his career may actually confer. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The article was created by a user named Darbaki, so I guess it's an autobiography, or created by a close relative. Especially has it has sentences like this claim cannot be proven, making me think it's own research from family history. Seeing as we can't verify they actually played a FIFA-recognised international match, I don't think it would survive an AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
There was an article about an Africa person in America coaching who was a real person, yet all the information on wikipedia prior to his coaching was actually fake information to inflate him. My gut is telling me, this happens to be another one of these articles that somehow got past a number of checks. From what I see, no one by this name has ever played for Sporting Lisbon and there doesn't appear to be any records for this name with either Marbella clubs. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I have raised the matter with user:Darbaki (who is still occasionally active on Wikipedia, albeit sporadically). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Decided to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youssef Darbaki Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I have closed the page as delete. The votes are 12-0 in favour of deletion and the article clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. Could some kind admin delete? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Voided seasons due to COVID-19

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Should stats for voided seasons be counted? I remember us saying that they shouldn't. However, on Hakim Ziyech, the 2019–20 Eredivisie stats are included; shouldn't they be removed? Nehme1499 11:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Eredivisie was officially voided, but the "final positions" were still used for European qualification in 2020/21. I would include the statistics but put in a note to say the season was cancelled / voided, as at Steven Berghuis. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
So the determinant is whether the positions were "used" for something (promotion, relegation, champions, continental competitions, etc.)? For e.g., the 2019–20 Lebanese Premier League was voided after 3 games, and the season didn't produce any effects. Nehme1499 11:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Was an announcement made as to how players' stats would be treated , or are we guessing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I doubt the federation would explicitly say something about that. Nehme1499 11:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as all the stats databases count that season in Ziyech's stats, why would we want to do something different? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the discussion I was referring to. Nehme1499 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I see no consensus in that discussion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No, but the arguments brought forth for not counting the games are much stronger than the ones for counting them. Nehme1499 11:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The 2020–21 National League North and South were voided with no promotion or relegation, but that league's website still records stats for it, including e.g. goalscorers lists. So do stats databases (those that go down that far). I don't see any arguments in that discussion in favour of ignoring the sources in favour of two or three Wikipedians' theorising. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources saying specifically that the stats were expunged, then it's not up to us to decide to expunge them on the basis that we think we ought to. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree if reliable sources are still recording them as appearances, then so should we. If the sources are removing games from expunged seasons, then and only then we should do that- but I don't believe that's the case for most/all leagues and stats websites. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - if stats websites use them, so should we. GiantSnowman 12:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fairfield Villa F.C.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, does anyone know if the above club has played at a notable enough level to pass WP:FOOTYN? I can't find anything from the cited sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: They've never played above modern day step 7, so not at a high enough level. Number 57 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Goal counts

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Goal counts. Why only domestic league is shown? Why aren't other official European tournaments counted? and why aren't there counters for assists? assists are equally as important as goals. this system is very corrupted IMHO and is disrespectful to midfield and defence players. Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk   13:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

For must cup competitions, data isn't available. So for consistency it's easier to just show league games. Regarding assists, those are also not readily available. Nehme1499 14:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting that the "league goals only" rule only applies to the infobox. For players where complete stats are readily available, there's nothing to stop them being shown in a "career statistics" section/table within the article. WRT assists, there is no agreed definition for this stat, different sources give different totals for the same player, and they are not recorded at all for 95% of players, so are generally avoided -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
But take a player like Mesut Özil for example. His main thing is assisting. As he is world famous, all of his actions are closely known, to the last detail. Wouldn't it make sense to include it for at least some players? Especially if their defining trait is assisting, not goalscoring. Sincerely, AdigabrekTalk   15:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Ctrl+F suggests that the word "assist" is mentioned 94 times in Özil's article, so the fact that he is known for assisting is pretty extensively covered...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Özil is known for assisting is already noted in the Style of play section: Due to his creative ability and offensive prowess as a playmaker, Özil has been called "assist-king" in the media. As of January 2016, Özil had the best ratio of assists per game in the history of the Premier League. Nehme1499 16:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATS applies. GiantSnowman 15:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC medals in infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago31 comments25 people in discussion
ALL INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS
There is a strong consensus to include medals from international tournaments in the infobox of soccer players and national teams, so as to be consistent with how medals are displayed in other sports. Some editors noted that such international tournaments would have to be notable in order to be included in the infobox; there does not appear to be a large objection to this point, though there appears to be no WikiProject-level consensus on this contingency owing to the limited extent of discussion on the matter. Editors are encouraged to discuss this point further in a follow-up to this RfC in order to reach a consensus on this remaining question. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following up on this discussion, which medals should be included in the infobox of (association) footballers and national teams?

  1. Olympics only
  2. Olympics and other major multi-sports events (e.g. Mediterranean Games)
  3. All international tournaments

re-listed by Nehme1499 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC); originally raised by Nehme1499 16:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

With the RfC over, can we say that there is consensus for option 3? Nehme1499 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I re-listed the discussion. Nehme1499 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the relisting, partly so that something meaningful shows at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture (see WP:RFCBRIEF), and partly so that the original inward links will still work. Also, there should be no need to churn the rfcid for a simple relisting - just reuse the previous {{rfc}} parameters exactly as they had been before the rfc was delisted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andy Lonergan

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

@Haklam1218: doesnt want to include Lonergan's EFL Trophy stats in his page (for the U21 teams), which is obviously wrong and keeps reverting it.Muur (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay so you (Muur) think playing for U21 teams are actually counted as professional appearances and keep reverting it too. Please mods make a judgement here please, thank you. Haklam1218 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Appearances in U21-only tournaments are not counted, but when an Under-21 team takes part in a senior competition they are. The key point is that external reliable sources list these games in his senior career, so we follow this. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Haklam1218: - there are no "mods" here who can simply make a judgement. Consensus is arrived at by discussion among all interested editors which everyone is then expected to respect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
yeah, soccerbase and soccerway both list those games. in addition the bbc, west brom, the athletic state longergan has played more than 400 matches in his career. if you take away these appearances hes only at 398 so they are counting these games in his stats. plus theres the whole, barca b, juve u23 stats for relevant players etc.Muur (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't like it, but it's standard/well-established to include U21 appearances in the EFL Trophy in the career stats box. GiantSnowman 20:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Williams

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hello. Carlos Williams (footballer) made one appearance for the Liberia national team in 2016. He received a call-up in 2021, and was on the bench for two matches. Should his international career be "open" or "closed"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say open as he is still in contention for a place in the team. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
See, my preference is to keep it closed until he gets another cap. He has a single cap, so it'd seem strange that one appearance would happen over multiple years. If we're being pedantic, every footballer is in contention for a place on a national team. I know this player is different from most players who haven't been called up or announced "international retirement" because he's made the bench, but my preference is for national team years to be closed if it's been 12 months or longer since the last appearance. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I generally agree with Ytoyoda's comment above. Nehme1499 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with keeping it closed. The time frame for national team is when he is eligible and in contention, so basically from when he is first called-up to the national team and until he announces retirement or international retirement. If a player joins a club, you won't say to close the period if he's still at the club but hasn't played for a season (say long term injury) --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This comes up all the time, but I don't think ".....until he announces retirement or international retirement" should be the only criterion. At least 90% of capped players don't formally "announce international retirement", so sometimes we need to use common sense. Matt Jarvis was still playing professionally in late 2020 but he was 34 and it was in the fifth tier of English football. To leave his international career "open" on the grounds he hadn't formally "announced international retirement" since his one and only cap nine years earlier would have been utterly ludicrous IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@ChrisTheDude: The other option is to have the national years range be from first cap until last cap - meaning never to have it open. That could be backed with the argument that national team is different to club teams which are based on contracts and very defined, while the national team you're eligible as you said above. --SuperJew (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it depends on individual circumstances. Jarvis was clearly well out of contention last year but Williams is in Liberia's squad now and so there is every chance he might finally make his second appearance soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I 100% endorse what you say there. I was just making the point that we shouldn't be as specific as "if the player is still playing then we leave it open unless he has formally announced his international retirement" given that probably only about 1% of capped players actually do that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I generally try to stay consistent with the recent call-ups section of national team articles. Once I remove a player from there (so, after 1 year from their last call-up), I also close the international career in the player's infobox. Maybe 1 year is too early, but at least it doesn't leave room for inconsistency (both with the NT article and within players themselves, with some having open careers and others not). Nehme1499 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA)

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Who can explain to me why the UEFA in Group D ranks Luxembourg as 5th and Nord Macedonia as 6th?

Based on the UEFA regulations; Article 13 Equality of points – group stage I see:

Criteria Comment
a Doesn't apply, teams didn't play each other yet.
b Doesn't apply, teams didn't play each other yet.
c Doesn't apply, teams didn't play each other yet.
d Doesn't apply.
e For both teams the same, -14.
f For both teams the same, 0.
g For both teams the same, 0
h For both teams the same, 0
i For both teams the same, 0
j For both teams the same, 0
k For both teams the same, 8 (MKD: 2 v ENG + 6 v AUT, and LUX: 6 v NIR + 2 v ENG).
j MKD: 12,730 and LUX: 2.779

The way I see it, North Macedonia should be 5th and Luxembourg 6th (the way it is on EN-Wiki). --Sb008 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably because their rankings are automated based on specific parameters (points, H2H, GD, goals scored, etc.) I'm guessing they didn't account for criteria j, and the system just put Luxembourg above on alphabetical order. Nehme1499 11:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I generate the tables automated and manage to get it right, so why shouldn't the UEFA be able to do so? I don't have millions to spend on hiring companies to automate matters. And for all other groups they do list it correct, however none of those groups reach criteria "j". But, do I understand correct that you agree the UEFA ranking is wrong? --Sb008 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, they aren't wrong: Quote: If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points on completion of the group stage, the following criteria are applied,..." Tiebreaker basically aren't applied while the group is ongoing. Wikipedia just does it for convenience. -Koppapa (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Koppapa: Okay, then which criteria apply prior to completion? --Sb008 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Prior to completion, the criteria are irrelevant and the teams occupy whatever positions in the table that the organisers say they occupy. – PeeJay 14:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
could it be because Luxembourg committed less fouls (17 as opposed to 24)? --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

National team infobox is ordered by age not appearance right?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For national team appearances in the infobox, it doesn't get sorted by date right? So, if a player appears for the senior team and then subsequently they play U23, U23 would still go before the senior squad right? On Josh Sargent, it was recently changed because the U23 caps came after the senior caps. RedPatch (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as per the MOS template, it begins with the lowest age group and ascends by age. See also the order displayed on Lionel Messi's infobox, U23 goes above the senior team even though he first played for them at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsKesha (talk • contribs)
Agreed: it's ordered by NT level, not chronologically. Nehme1499 13:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Thought so. I changed it back and linked to this discussion in the edit summary RedPatch (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Berkay Vardar

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, WikiProject,

I was looking at articles that had been moved to and from Draft space and came across this title. I know little about football so I'm hoping someone here can look this page over and okay this athlete's notability. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, a response within 15 minutes! This is an active WikiProject. Many thanks for looking it over. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Katio Landi (footballer) and Katio Landi

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all,

The latter article is salted due to UPE but Katio Landi (footballer) has just been created. Is this sufficiently similar to the previously rejected ones? I was wondering if an admin could access the deleted ones and compare? Thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty much identical, just a couple of extra sentences added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It's almost certainly a paid-for article – the draft versions (which were repeatedly declined) were written by an editor paid by Landi. As the text is almost identical, I assume it's from the same source (paid editor or Landi), so I've moved it back into draftspace given the lack of COI declaration. Number 57 11:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
if he did played in the segunda division last season, he does qualify for an article.Muur (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can see, he only made his professional(?) debut this season, playing for Messina in the Italian Serie D Cup. Not notable. – PeeJay 08:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
He's never played above the fourth tier either in Spain or Italy. He might have been registered for clubs with first teams at higher levels, but the reason that article cites no stats sites apart from BeSoccer is that BeSoccer is the only one that goes down to the Spanish fourth tier. BDFutbol covers the Segunda B back to the 1970s, and he's not on it, so the claim in the article to 25 appearances is incorrect, and even that wouldn't be fully pro. Nor is Serie D. I didn't think draft space was intended for storing unverifiable promotional articles about non-notable subjects? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection request Sezer Öztürk

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The player recently got accused of murder, and there is some vandalism going on with the page. May we protect it?--Ortizesp (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks to be semi-protected now. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/09#Sezer Öztürk. --Leyo 10:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Pefok at BSC Young Boys

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

The page Jordan Pefok was recently moved from Jordan Siebatcheu, you can see the move proposal and arguments at Talk:Jordan_Pefok. I updated the squad template for his club Template:BSC Young Boys squad and at the BSC Young Boys#Current squad but User:Leyo is keen on reverting the moves so wanted to have a discussion here to decide a consensus.

The player's WP:COMMONNAME has changed as per his own request, and he wears his "new" last name Pefok on his shirt for the NT and the Young Boys squad. I would like his current name to be reflected in the Young Boys squad and template. While Siebatcheu is perhaps his most commonly used name before, the player himself requested to be referred to as Pefok and most new English publications reflect that.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be Pefok. The websites just haven't been updated, but many other sources clearly indicate that he is now going by Pefok so that should be what is used. The league and uefa naturally aren't as quick to update because they have databases for thousands of players, so specific changes usually take longer. RedPatch (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The move request had a clear (in fact, unanimous) consensus that Pefok should be the name used on Wikipedia. Makes no sense to use his "old" name in some places. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I support the move too, though I think it makes sense to use "Siebatcheu" in match or tournament articles like 2021 CONCACAF Nations League Final, where the "old" surname was being used in promotional material, like https://twitter.com/jaimeor96/status/1401698385657204739/photo/1. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
coduln't the same reasoning be used to rename ben brenten to add diaz?Muur (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
no because the RM did not move the Bereton article. GiantSnowman 21:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The Swiss Football League uses Jordan Siebatcheu (and also provides his name as it occurs in official documents, i.e. Theoson-Jordan Siebatcheu). The Swiss media including newspapers and TV stations (I use to watch all match summaries) use consistently Jordan Siebatcheu, as does UEFA (profile, match report). It is thus obvious that in the context to his club, Siebatcheu clearly is the name that is dominantly used. That seems to be different for the US national team, but this is not of relevance in the context discussed here (his club BSC Young Boys).
BTW: Players don't always have their last name on the jersey. In the case of Reza Ghoochannejhad, it's his first name Reza. The former player Kubilay Türkyilmaz used Kubi at times, just to name a few examples. --Leyo 22:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  • There are other documents where his full legal name includes "Pefok" ,like the CONCACAT nations league document that you removed from his pagehere. And his name change is recent, so of course most existing resources use his old name. And of course, names don't always match with legal names, but I think that in conjunction with all of the other circumstances show that he should just be listed as Jordan Pefok going forward, even for Swiss pages.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    Such rosters are sometimes quickly produced and thus may contain mistakes as it recently happened in the case of the Swiss national team (Renato Steffen was listed as Stefan Steffen). The profiles on the website of the Swiss Football League, on the other hand, are based on the official documents that need to be checked by the league in order to grant playing permissions.
    From a club/league football perspective, the article should not have been moved. Together with the national team perspective, maybe. However, there is currently definitely no good reason the change his name in content related to the league. At least not, based on the current situation. BTW: I applied a compromise in BSC Young Boys#Current squad, i.e. both Siebatcheu and Pefok are shown. --Leyo 00:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed the starting lineup for the champions league game against Atalanta Bergamo that will begin in 10 minutes, as it appears on the website of the club. It contains 17 Siebatcheu. --Leyo 16:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) PS. The same applies to the official line-ups by UEFA.

Any more blocking please?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

On this account. @ChrisTheDude: FYI. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. For the love of God, how can this individual still not have got bored of all this nonsense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Also this one as well which @Crowsus: reverted, but in all fairness I don't think Crowsus knows fully on the extent of the long-term vandalism being done by many sock puppets. Also I have been impersonated, presumably by the same sock master, see this group of contribs. This is a flipping nightmare from my point of view. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Haven't come across any others as far as I know, but I don't always spot the patterns of repeat offenders. The Mike account edits were all along the same lines, and I (mis)interpreted it as GF innocent over-enthusiasm for women's football. From looking at the other contributions it seems clear that it was just one aspect of causing disruption on this occasion. Crowsus (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
A very sad individual. Revert, report/block, move on. Don't give them any more oxygen than that. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree re GiantSnowman's response here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

jobsforfootball.com website

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I'm not sure if we're allowed this following website to any articles, I have never visited that site before. See Database4football Profile for an example. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hjk1106: - fyi (as you've reverted on the article Katie Zelem for example). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I haven't looked too deep at them but the site seems to primarily be a random recruitment platform for anything from bar staff and security to physios and coaches. Not sure how reliable their stats database is considering one glance at their Man City Women squad shows Manchester United's Maria Thorisdottir and Mie Leth Jans who departed City three years ago. Suspect the sudden spree of additions is an employee trying to generate traffic for a pretty useless alternative database. Hjk1106 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
If we look on this website, you would find there are not many results here, around 20 in all, many of which were added today including the one on Jarrod Bowen which was reverted. And yes, the information on the Manchester City seems a bit out of date. My guess is that this website is a bit like transfermarkt in the way these are user-generated and should not be used as reliable sources. If anyone else agrees with that, we should revert the IP address/es who added them in. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not look reliable or useful or welcome to me, I suggest removing it where you find it. GiantSnowman 19:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree re "suggest removing it" so I've removed/replaced with a club profile where possible. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Juventus U23 and Women stats

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On these days, I've been very busy and therefore I can't update Juventus U23 and Women stats (including the players ones). Can someone take my place for some weeks' time? Dr Salvus 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong about PSG B

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. I just realized something. So basically, at the end of the 2018–19 Championnat National 2 season, Paris Saint-Germain decided to "delete", or disband, its reserve (B) side. The second reserve side, the amateur C team, had won its Régional 1 group, but was ineligible for promotion, from what I understand from the sources below. Since the reserve side was deleted, I had assumed that the C team was just promoted to the Championnat National 3, the tier below the National 2. What I know understand from this source is that PSG basically removed their B team from the National 2, meaning they were automatically relegated to the National 3. The amateur team from the Regional 1 was assigned to the National 3 to take the place of the former B team. But basically what happened was that the team was relegated one division and entirely switched squads; Paris Saint-Germain B was not dissolved. The team itself and division were changed, and the amateur C team was the one that got actually dissolved, with PSG sending a letter to the Ligue de Paris Ile-de-France about it.
Sources: footamateur.fr, leparisien.fr 1, leparisien.fr 2.
I brought this up because I want to make sure that all players who were playing for "Paris Saint-Germain Amateurs" are changed to "Paris Saint-Germain B" in infoboxes. So far there are four such players - Nathan Bitumazala, Lucas Bernadou, Cedric N'Koum, and Gael N'Lundulu. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What I can understand from Bernadou's example is that the players on the National 2 side were not automtically released, but were just simply contracted to PSG but didn't have a team to play on. Bernadou seems like one of the only ones that ended up staying past 2019 and playing for the National 3 team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Is this article really notable? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If the match has received more than just routine coverage since it happened then I would say yes, it is notable. I'm not sure it definitely has though. Usually, with upsets like this, I would say to wait and see how the match is remembered over time. It's not always easy to gauge how a game will be remembered at the time (with this one though, I think it will be). As an example, Celtic's 2–1 win over Barcelona in 2013 is often tipped as one of the biggest Champions League upsets but it doesn't have an article. I would reckon there was more non-routine coverage of that match but there hasn't been the same time for the Real Sheriff match to accumulate non-routine coverage.
Also, the article title should be Real Madrid CF 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
No, this is an exercise in WP:RECENTISM. It was a shock result, yes, but it was only a group stage match with no greater significance than that. I would support deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I share No Great Shaker's view. --Leyo 10:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It's 2 days after the event, very hard to tell whether there will be long-term coverage of this. Though given the monstrosity in the differences of the two sides, I would imagine that coverage would be there in the mid to long term. Maybe leave it 6 months or a year and see what coverage does or doesn't turn up about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps draftify it? But with the title corrected per Stevie above. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to take to AFD. GiantSnowman 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
AfD has been started. Clog Wolf Howl 03:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lechia Gdańsk & Śląsk Wrocław (Fan Friendship)

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I found another one of these weird football articles: Lechia Gdańsk & Śląsk Wrocław (Fan Friendship). Is this article notable at all? I don't think so on its own, and it probably should be merged into the two respective club articles. What are your thoughts, WPF? Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Same as any article we have about a rivalry, except this one seems based in friendship rather than mutual antagonism. – PeeJay 09:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there a better title? Per MOS:AMPERSAND, the ampersand shouldn't be used, and "Fan Friendship" isn't a proper noun so shouldn't have capitals..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The friendship seems reasonable, and at least as notable as the UK equivalent Friendship Trophy. Possibly the article should be moved to The Friendship Match or Friendship Match (the current title seems unnatural to me)? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

IFFHS continental clubs of the 20th century

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There is currently this list, although in past this article was deleted, which offered a more extensive overview of this IFFHS study of football in each continent during the 20th century, including the criteria that determined all related rankings. Wouldn't it be better to recover the deleted article and merge in it that list?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think either article needs to exist here. The newer one is just a list that has no business being mirrored on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 15:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, should be deleted via AFD. GiantSnowman 15:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: A list without including the criteria established and published by the body, as it stands is Eurocentric as there are 5 other similar lists without articles, which is what the deleted article pointed out. As a solution an article could be created for the IFFHS awards as all that takes up most of the main article which should focus on the organization per se.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
AfD started here. Feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Afghan flag

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The Country data template for Afghanistan has been updated so the flag icon has now been changed to the Taliban flag. I've updated the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) pages so the flag is as it was when Afghanistan were competing, I just don't know how to update the goalscorers section at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. It points to Module:Goalscorers/data/2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC), but it's not what I was expecting so it would be much appreciated if someone could update the code so the correct Afghan flag is shown. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I have made the change to the module so that now the 2013 flag variant is now displayed. Also to everyone, I had a question - Is it possible to run a script of sorts so that all instances between 2013 and 2021 so far can be replaced with the previous Afghan flag. Doing it manually for each and every age group team as well seems like quite a bit of a hassle. Or is there no other way to do it, other than the manual step?--Anbans 585 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone remember what we did with Mauritania when they changed flag? --SuperJew (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Anbans. I think there is a way to do it that isn't manual but I wouldn't know how. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not. Checked a few edit histories and it looks like the Mauritania flag change was done manually. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland:, @SuperJew: This would be talked about topic for other sports or topics as well, right? I mean everyone would want to correct the flag during these past years. So is their a general discussion panel regarding this or something like that?--Anbans 585 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I sort of assume there will be but I don't know where. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports perhaps? GiantSnowman 10:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Townsend SIUU.jpg

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This photo is nominated for deletion by me as I have looked at the page history (Andros Townsend) and it was used for only a brief moment before being reverted. Full details on the Commons page, reasoning why I nominated it for removal. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Souleymane Diallo (footballer)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone find sources to check where Souleymane Diallo (footballer) plays or if he is still even playing? I know that NFT has him still playing for Tevragh-Zeina, but per the RFI video, he also played for Nouadhibou in 2019. In 2019, he was supposed to play at the AFCON for Mauritania, but he suffered an injury, which is probably why he wasn't in the Mauritania squad for the competition. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the ever-reliable Transfermarkt, his full name is "Brahim Souleymane Diallo" and was born on 30 December 1986. The transfer history makes sense, as he left Tevragh for Ksar in 2015, then joined Nouadhibou in 2017 where he plays now (which checks out with the YouTube video). This article confirms he was at Ksar in 2015, and this one says he was at Nouadhibou in 2017. There's also this Facebook post in 2020, which seems to suggest he moved to ASC Snim. Nehme1499 11:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming of "sub-articles"

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I tried to move the page FC Zimbru in European football to FC Zimbru Chișinău in European football, because this would be the standard way of naming it, considering the main page is FC Zimbru Chișinău. I did not think of it as a controversial move, so I did not discuss the move before taking action. Now, the page creator, Kolya77, seems to object the move, having moved the page back twice, the second time without giving any reason why. Some examples of similar pages are FC Shakhtar Donetsk in European football and FC Zenit Saint Petersburg in European football. Is this a matter that should be discussed? I may be wrong, but I was of the impression that this was the standard naming convention for articles like this, so I do not see what there is to discuss. Sørhaug (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with the move but it should be taken to WP:RM to establish a consensus with others. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Clubs and their sub-articles should use the same name. If the club article is correctly named, then the sub-article should be moved to match, as per Sørhaug. However, if the club's name is FC Zimbru, as per Kolya77's apparent reason for reverting the move, it's the club and any other sub-articles, categories, etc that should be renamed. Either way, a move request at the sub-article looks like the way to go. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Gillingham F.C.

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have nominated Gillingham F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I got this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude give me a shout if you need any backup! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked ip editor

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone else noticed a marked increase in ip editing based in Indonesia on football articles following the block of Flix11? I can't be bothered with a whack-a-mole reporting of the addresses, but is there anything else that can / should be done? Spike 'em (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Request a range block at WP:ANI? GiantSnowman 10:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RB Leipzig Abbreviation

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Within the 2021–22 UEFA Champions League and 2021–22 UEFA Champions League group stage articles, I have discovered a problem. Within group A, RB Leipzig's three-letter abbreviation is LPZ. However, the official UEFA abbreviation for RB Leipzig is RBL, not LPZ. Please change it so that the abbreviation for RB Leipzig is RBL. Spaceworker2 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I was wondering the same. Does anyone have any specific reason on why "LPZ" is used instead of "RBL"? Clog Wolf Howl 04:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps someone assumed that it wouldn't be RBL because UEFA doesn't allow sponsored names but forgot that RB stands for Rasenballsport and not Red Bull? Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what happened, because "RBL" was used in previous seasons' articles to denote Leipzig. I have fixed it. I have also fixed PSG's code to "PAR", as it is used by UEFA and previous seasons' articles. Also, there doesn't seem to be consistency with code usage as clubs are listed with different codes in different season articles. Clog Wolf Howl 06:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian league names

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Hello. I think consistency is a problem with the Norwegian league names. The second tier is called Norwegian First Division, while all the tiers below are called 2. divisjon, 3. divisjon and so on. As I see it, there are two options: Anglicise all the names like Norwegian First Division, Norwegian Second Division and so on, or move Norwegian First Division to 1. divisjon to keep it consistent with the current non-anglicised names. There was a discussion in 2018 to move Norwegian First Division to 1. divisjon, but no consensus was reached back then. I supported the move in that discussion, but now I don't have a strong preference for any of the two options, I just think the league names should be consistent. Sørhaug (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree there should be consistency - and as we are the English language Wikipedia I am inclined to suggest we use 'Norwegian x Division' as opposed to 'x. divisjon', but am easy either way really. GiantSnowman 13:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Provided English language sources use First Division, Second Division etc. then I'd agree. It's not like La Liga or the Bundesliga where the official Spanish/German name is commonly used in English. As an example, Soccerway uses 1. Division, 2. Division etc.FlashScore uses the sponsor name (OBOS Ligaen) but Division 2 and Division 3 for lower tiers. I reckon First Division, Second Division etc would be the best solution as I think it's clear that English language sources use an anglicised name. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I too support consistency, but I'm more of the mind that if the common language of the country can be rendered in the Latin-script alphabet, it should be in the language of the territory. --dashiellx (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I opposed the move of Norwegian First Division to 1.divisjon. That name is not used in English sources, and we should use a name which is recognisable to our English-speaking readers. I'm not specifically wedded to "Norwegian First Division" - that does make it look like a proper noun, which it isn't. So it could be Norwegian first division (sentence case) or Division 1 (Norway) or perhaps even 1 Division (Norway) (although starting with a number is a little ugly). In any case, I would certainly support a move of 2.divisjon etc. to match the first division, as long as they use the term "division" rather than "divisjon" and also it's clear that these are Norwegian.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I definitely oppose the name 1 Division, because that would be an incorrect translation. 1. divisjon literally translates to 1st division, not 1 division. A name I would suggest is Norwegian 1st division (perhaps with a capital D), similar to the Danish 1st Division. Sørhaug (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd vote for the original Norwegian names in the absence of a common English name, so for me I'd prefer a move to 1. divisjon and etc.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I found five English language sources referring to it as 1st Division (or First Division): SofaScore, SoccerStats.com, FootyStats.org, Tribuna.com and RSSSF (Norwegian football archive). You also have sites like Soccerway and FcTables.com , who refer to it as 1. Division, which is a wrong translation, like I explained above. If they translated it correctly, I think they would also call it 1st Division. WorldFootball.net is one of the few English sites who uses the Norwegian version 1. divisjon. Sørhaug (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
National Football Teams also use the Norwegian names (1. divisjon), whereas Global Sports Archive use the sponsored names (which aren't adequate for Wikipedia). 08:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
As for Norwegian language sources, the Norwegian Football Federation, Altomfotball, Eurosport and VG use sponsored names, while NRK and NIFS use 1. divisjon. It should also be noted that there is a women's league called 1. divisjon, 1. divisjon (women), which should be moved/not moved in accordance with the other articles that are being discussed. Sørhaug (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

All these points should be discussed at a WP:RM should anybody care enough to start one. GiantSnowman 09:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Norwegian_First_Division#Requested_move_5_October_2021. Sørhaug (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

IFFHS awards

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After this, there are also these articles which the main source is the own website. What about with all these and with the main article, in which almost all of its awards are pointed out almost indiscriminately instead of focusing on the organization itself?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Amateurs national team

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. What should we call amateur national teams in infoboxes? For example, for the France national amateur football team, should we write France amateurs, France Amateurs, or France (amateur)? And for the military national teams? What should we do? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I reckon "Amateurs" go well with the nation when it's capitalised and in one sentence. Like England also use "England Amateurs" FastCube (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Should we do that for military national team players? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Expatriate football player categories

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, WikiProject,

Every day, a list of empty categories is issued by a Wikimedia database and these categories are tagged for CSD C1 deletion. If the categories are still empty after 7 days, the categories are deleted, if they are not empty, the deletion tag is removed and the status quo remains. There are only few types of categories (redirect categories, disambiguation categories, categories involved in a CFD discussion, WikiProject categories) that are exempt from deletion.

I tell you all this because tonight, a whole boatload of categories involving expatriate football players showed up on the empty category list. It looks like it was Crowsus who emptied these categories. You can see these categories right here. If these are a valid form of categorizing football players, it would help if this emptying was reversed. You might want to discuss whether or not this is a valid basis for categorizing football players. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: This issue arises when there is an expatriate category with only one player in it, and the player's article gets deleted. It isn't that the category itself is removed from the player article. Nehme1499 06:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: no, Liz is quite right, I did manually empty them - although many did have only one article in them anyway. Crowsus (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
My bad, I had thought we were discussing "X expatriate sportspeople in Y". Nehme1499 20:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The 'Expatriate footballers in x by nationality' category type is not valid, as that is overcategorisation - we have e.g. Category:English expatriate sportspeople in Spain and that is sufficient. Those categories should be emptied and deleted. GiantSnowman 09:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I dunno about the emptied part, I should probably have taken it to CfD, but I find that process pretty tedious and I was fully aware that this project had rejected that level of categorisation for footballers (other sports accept that level and even deeper, as I have found when trying to apply rules here to other topics, wrongly assuming they were site-wide). As GS has supported, they were invalid cats and should not have been created, so the fact that they have been removed is correct - but whether the ends justify the means is another issue I suppose, and I accept any sanctions from using the wrong process to sort it out. Crowsus (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll tag them for deletion as is usually done. It's rare that we get so many empty categories at once on a the same subject so I just wanted to check in. Looks like this was the proper action to take for overcategorization. Thanks for handling it, Crowsus. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Christian Peyron

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should I separate Christian Peyron's spells with Nice and Nice B? He played one match for Nice in the 1970–71 season, played for the B team from 1971 to 1977, the A team from 1977 to 1980, and the B team in the 1980–81 season. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

What is currently on the article is "not separated" if the question was confusing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is, else every time a player players for reserves/U23s you'll have to separate a new line.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

De facto/de jure manager positions

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow wikipedians. I'm not sure if you ever stumbled on a situation like this in western leagues, but from my observation it happens quite often in post-Soviet leagues (Russia, Belarus and so on). Basically every once in a while a team will appoint a new head coach/manager who doesn't have appropriate coaching license to work in the league (like UEFA Pro License or some other), so in addition to that they will also appoint another person (who does have a license) as a de-jure head coach, who will be listed in match protocols, speak at press conferences and relay instructions to the players on pitch from the de-facto coach. This may also happen to an existing manager after team's promotion to a league with more strict licensing requirements.

Example: Murad Musayev has coached FC Krasnodar for two seasons without a license, while on paper the coaches were Oleg Fomenko and then Sergey Matveyev (one season each), who were really working as assistants to Musyaev.

What's the correct way to represent this in infoboxes and manager history templates? --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts from anyone before this rambling gets archived? --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be who the organizing authority of the competition officially recognizes as the head coach regardless of who is doing the actual work.--dashiellx (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
If they are called the head coach/manager in sources then reflect that in the article, regardless of if they have the badges or not. There was a Scottish junior (non-league) team that had something similar a few seasons ago and I can't remember which one but I'm sure he was still just called the manager in the article because that's the job he was employed to do even if he couldn't technically be called the manager on the team sheet. The sources called him the manager so that's what we should go with. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Leam Richardson

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

second time ive brought it here now, but people are still combining his caretaker/permanent spell and listing *all* appearances in the infobox. in fact, last time we determined the stats the editors were putting into his player stats were fictionalised in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_146#caretaking_becoming_permanent Muur (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

AFC U-16 / U-17 Championship

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The AFC U-16 Championship (Currently branded as AFC U-17 Asian Cup) has, historically, changed age limits. According to Wikipedia template AFC U-17 Championship, it was U-16 up to 1990 edition, U-17 between 1992 and 2006, U-16 between 2008 and 2020.

But according to RSSSF, the tournament was U-16 up to 2000 edition, U-17 from 2002 to 2008, and again U-16 from 2010 to 2020.

I cannot find any other reliable source online. I wish to know which one is correct. Thanks. Sofeshue (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sofeshue: According to the AFC system (which is now down), the competition was U17 in 2002, 2004 and 2006. All other instances were U16. Nehme1499 16:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Could you please tell me how you could read from a downed webpage? I tried the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive), to no avail. Sofeshue (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sofeshue: I know a guy who has access to the backend, and he told me. Though, until the AFC resolve their website, I'm guessing we can't do much for now. Nehme1499 14:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Should I edit the template {{AFC U-17 Championship}} and move relevant articles to reflect correct age limits in these historical tournaments, per the info provided by user Nehme1499? Looking for advice. Sofeshue (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sofeshue:, @Nehme1499: You can try the HTTP version of the page, that version is working. The link for which is this--Anbans 585 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I can access the website and I saw the info. Indeed, Nehme1499's info was correct. Going to add/correct the info to the relevant pages and templates. Sofeshue (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability has a contradictory player notability criteria included. It says as follows: "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability)." This is contradictory because all current non-FPL top-tier leagues are technically in the "pre-professional" and "amateur era" of each nation's football history. If there has never been an FPL in Luxembourg, isn't the current top flight in the amateur era of the nation? This is super contradictory and needs to be clarified. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It probably refers to the "pre-professional (amateur era)" at the global level, not per nation. --SuperJew (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
As the notice suggests, the player section of the notability guidance was superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included for information only as a record of the previous guidance. LTFC 95 (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I see. That means that it's now irrelevant, correct? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a good guideline but ultimately notability is the parameter.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

AFC Youth Championship / AFC U-19 Championship

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to AFC website (accessible via IE, but apparently not via chrome), the brand of the tournament in different editions are

Year Brand
1959–1985 AFC Youth Championship
1986–2002 AFC U-19 Championship
2004–2006 AFC Youth Championship
2008–2020 AFC U-19 Championship
2023 AFC U-20 Asian Cup

Currently, all articles on Wikipedia about the tournament between 1986 and 2002 are titled under AFC Youth Championship, which is technically incorrect. I think these articles should be moved under AFC U-19 Championship. I've done similar moves about AFC U-16/U-17 Championship (reflecting correct age limits) and I know it is tedious work. If someone is interested, we can do the work together. Sofeshue (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Scottish League Cup Final

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone adminy have a look at the above and swap it with 2021 Scottish League Cup Final (February) which already exists as a redirect, as the next final is scheduled for December and therefore the unsuffixed term should become a disambiguation? No great rush tho as the finalists won't be known til late November so no urgent need for 2021 Scottish League Cup Final (December) to be created, plus with everything that's gone on recently I suppose it's not impossible that it would be rescheduled – and a 2-week delay would take it into 2022. Whatever you feel is appropriate, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the article, but don't have time right now to change the links in the 50+ articles which currently point to the redirect page. They will need changing as I would imagine the redir will be replaced with a disambig page once the article on the December final is created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The majority was because of a template and I've fixed that, a couple more templates, and will take care now of any remaining links. --SuperJew (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer to wait until the December cup takes place in case it is postponed to 2022 in the end (which will require moving etc again), but as it's already been done, went ahead and changed the links. --SuperJew (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would appreciate additional input from the project on this AFD. The question is regarding the notability of five college soccer seasons from 2014 to 2019. I feel the discussion may have reached an impasse, and I would like to hear additional voices from the project concerning these articles. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbara Lorsheijd and several other similar articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Senior players in youth teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Not wanting to re-start the eternal 'when does a youth career end in the infix', but I found this article interesting. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"I don't want to start a fire, but here's a spark"? ;) On the serious side though, that is an interesting read. Thanks for sharing! --SuperJew (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm being serious 😂! GiantSnowman 09:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The difference is that those senior players have joined to play essentially reserve team football. Even though Premier League 2 is nominally an under-23 league, it's not youth football, especially since those "under-23" teams are allowed three older players per match. I think while a player is still eligible for the true youth teams (i.e. under-18s), their youth career should be considered to be ongoing. – PeeJay 10:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Gylfi Sigurðsson

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wouldn't disagree that the infobox photo needed to be reverted back to the cropped version.

As to File:ISL-HRV (21) (cropped).jpg - not sure why it was ever overwitten to include the ball as well from a previous version, anyone thinks it is better to return it to the original crop made by SoccerBoy and upload the current photo under a newer name? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of deliberate misogyny in writing NSPORTS / NFOOTY at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Mass deletion nomination of 14 women Footballers Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd, some editors are claiming that NFOOTY was written deliberately to keep in as many men as possible, and to keep out as many women as possible (e.g. " The policy was deliberately constructed by individuals who, presumably, considered the matter intently, and who designed a system that excludes women and includes thousands of, in all other respect, non-notable men. You seem to be suggesting that the outcome was not designed, was not deliberate. That's completely not credible. " and "The whole system is very obviously made and propped up for sexist reasons and for keeping in obviously non-notable male players."). I have challenged these personal attacks, only to get editors doubling down on them. Perhaps some people who have been involved with the writing of NSPORTS / NFOOTY can chime in and give their view on this? Fram (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place. GiantSnowman 21:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sion Spence

Latest comment: 3 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

@Pwimageglow: insists on repeatedly adding the player's full name into prose, rather than just surname as is standard - notwithstanding that the forename is mis-spelt. Can others please weigh in? I know @Spike 'em: has reverted similar edits from the same user at another article... GiantSnowman 18:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

full name would be super repetitive and wordy, thats the entire point of not doing that.Muur (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I thought that MOS:SURNAME covers this. --Jaellee (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
No because the MOS guideline saying "subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name" is actually only "my opinion" apparently... GiantSnowman 18:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Totally untrue, as you well know. The only reason you want his first name removed is because you don't like the correct forename spelling of Siôn Spence (not Sion) for some unfathomable reason (as referenced in the most recent paragraph, Wales under 21 squad, listed as Siôn). In addition, as you know, to the Soccerway reference in the byline "Siôn". As you know, my edit of 27Aug 13.56 listed multiple other sources (after a quick google) confirming Siôn, including the official Football Association of Wales website. If you wish to put a question to the community at least gave the guts to tell the truth and put the question in a fair balanced way - not just fish for allies that you've given part of the story to in order to back up your inexplicable bias and bullying.

Siôn Spence at FAW website Siôn Spence at Dragonsoccer Siôn Spence at Transfermarkt Pwimageglow Pwimageglow (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ps MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". So a guideline, not a standard as you claimed. On a page for a young up and coming player with very little content, using his first name more than once in prose is a non-issue, no-one has suggested repeating a first name every time a surname is stated, as you intimated (thousands of Wiki pages do exactly that anyway eg Christiano Ronaldo). No, this is a diversion to hide your actual weird bias against the correct spelling of Siôn.Pwimageglow (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
pps Spike'Em reverted exactly the same spelling of Siôn with no explanation, just a pointer to this talk section. He did not 'reverted similar edits' as you claimed so that you could imply a wider issue and support your bias. Reverting without explanation is of course against Wiki principles and in this case prejudges any community discussion. Indeed, Spike'Em may not even agree with you now that he's in knowledge of the actual facts rather than your incorrect biased opening statement.Pwimageglow (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I reverted as there are more sources that use Sion, including his current club and his own Twitter account.Spike 'em (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
There you go - you did not revert because I used his first name in prose as Snowman intimated or because I used his first name multiple times (I didn't) as Snowman intimated. All I ask is that if a question is posed to the community Snowman does it in an unbiased, honest and open way for discussion. Also, Twitter is not a valid source. Pwimageglow (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
And of the sources on the player's page, 7 organisations use Sion, and only one Siôn. Spike 'em (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
And as I explained the references to Siôn including the official Football Association of Wales website were deleted from his page. Obviously the absence of references on the page do not prove that the references do not exist.Pwimageglow (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
You added passing mentions of his name in the External Links section, which goes against MOS:ELNO : the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article and the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. If you want to re-add them as inline references then be my guest, they will still form a minority of the references on there. Not repeating his forename may be a guideline, but it is one that everyone else here would like to follow; there is consensus not to add it repeatedly. Also Twitter would seem to be valid as a WP:SELFSOURCE (confirming how Spence spells his own name). Spike 'em (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being polite but you're now going down the same stubborn defence of your pre-judgement as Snowman. You said you reverted my change because there was only one reference to Siôn and you linked to Snowman's fraudulent statement at the top of this chat. Now you claim you reverted because the multiple references to Siôn on the internet that I found (on a 5 second google) are not good enough or numerous enough for you. Make your mind up. Why would any internet content provider invent the name Siôn if it wasn't his name? We all now know his name is Siôn. The rest of this chat is just waffle for no benefit to wikiPwimageglow (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I don't care whether it's 'Sion' or 'Siôn' really, although as Spike says the vast majority of sources use 'Sion'. What I do care about is editors using spelling which does not match the article location (i.e. if the article is at 'Sion', that is the spelling we should use throughout the article, and if the article is at 'Siôn' then use that spelling throughout the article), and then edit warring (against consensus and guidelines!) to restore it. Accusing me of bias/discrimination is entirely baseless and shows the weakness of your argument/editing. GiantSnowman 21:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Your bullying and bias shows the weakness of your argument/editing as clearly demonstrated by your biased opening post, as I proved. There was no consensus prior to this discussion and my edits were deleted without explanation (against wiki guidelines) so again you invent fiction to support your bias. If there was edit warring it was you! So now you claim that your objection is that the page name and the prose spelling is different? whereas your original point to the community was that the first name must not be used in prose (untrue) or multiple times (it wasn't) and mis-spelt (biased). RidiculousPwimageglow (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Same for me : if the majority of reliable English language sources spell his name with the accent, then I would happily support a page move and to spell his name as such in any other articles where he is mentioned. I'd prefer to see articles that refer to him in detail rather than in a list of names as some of the links above do. Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Only last name should be listed after intro as per MOS:SURNAME. Whether it should be spellt Siôn or Sion is another question, and Pwimageglow should open up a WP:RM if he thinks that he has enough references to back it up. I've added language variation to intro, hopefully that helps.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not fussed one way or the other about the diacritic issue, but an article definitely shouldn't repeatedly use the subject's full name (forename and surname), it just doesn't read like a professional standard of writing. Take a look at this random BBC News article - the subject's full name is used at the start but then after that he is only referred to by his surname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
As I've clarified above MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". So a guideline, not a standard. Also, his first name was used in prose once (not repeatedly as Snowman intimated). As I said, thousands of Wiki pages repeat first names for readability anyway eg Christiano Ronaldo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs)
Cristiano Ronaldo, not "Christiano Ronaldo". Clog Wolf Howl 13:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear. Sad.Pwimageglow (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, I did a check on Ronaldo's article and I reckon there is only one repetition of his full name (outside direct quotes, titles of things, etc) out of literally hundreds of mentions of him, so hardly an endorsement of doing it elsewhere -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
So the same number of first name mentions as Siôn Spence - thanks for proving my point and confirming I'm correct on the MOS:SURNAME guideline. Go check Harry Kane or amend the thousands of wiki pages that have first name in the prose. I'm not endorsing anything - just pointing out first name in prose is common throughout wiki and not against wiki rules as Snowman initially claimed (though now he says he doesn't care??) Pwimageglow (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
there are two different arguments going on here and this is weird. one is about how to spell the name and one is about if the name should be spammed in articles or not. this thread was not meant to argue the players name.Muur (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
As I've clarified above - this thread was not meant to 'clarify the players name' because Snowman opened the debate with a hidden agenda.Pwimageglow (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Just drop the stick and recognise that you were wrong on both spelling of forename as well repeated inclusion of forename, and move on. It's not a big deal. GiantSnowman 12:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Haha. YOU made it a big deal with your bullying and bias. Just drop your stick, bullying an bias and recognise that you were wrong on both spelling of forename as well as repeated inclusion of forename (which you the claimed you don't care about, make your mind up!). Again, If you raise a question to the community at least have the guts to make it open and unbiased. Pwimageglow (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Drop the stick and move on. The spelling of his first name is irrelevant since we have sources that support the use of the diacritic and ones that leave it out. The problem is using his first name more times than is necessary. To go through the entire article referring to him just as "Spence" and then suddenly throw his first name in is jarring. – PeeJay 12:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Give over, as I've already proven above that's not a wiki 'standard' and there's thousands of wiki pages that use forename in the prose so you must be constantly 'jarred'. Nor, now Snowman says, is that even his concern after he set the hares running down this rabbit hole.Pwimageglow (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It doesn’t need to be a “wiki standard” for it to be bad writing. What is the need to refer to him by his full name there? Rhetorical question, there is no need. – PeeJay 01:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

AFC Youth Championship historical qualifications

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am going through the AFC Youth Championship and have been adding articles for historical qualification tournaments. For 1986, 1988, 1990 editions, I relied mostly on FIFA's Technical Reports for the corresponding FIFA U-20 World Cup tournaments, which include results of continental youth tournaments. Starting from 1992, I find that FIFA's report no longer provides such results, and RSSSF's results are highly incomplete. Could anyone point to me a better source for such historical qualifications? I am glad to convert the information and add it to Wikipedia. Sofeshue (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Axel Kei

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone look at this new article. There is a source that says he is 13 years old. Other editors disagree. Lots of reverts. This probably needs some protection as well. MB 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely 13. Major League Soccer confirms it. MLS would not be off by 14 years for an academy player source RedPatch (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:103.234.7.152

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This IP who was previously blocked for purposeful vandalism is back at it. I've reverted some of their most recent edits, but I'm sure there are more and I currently don't have the time to look through their full contribution history. If someone is willing to help, that'd be much appreciated. Also, I guess an admin could perhaps block them again before they do more damage. Luxic (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Luxic The user has been banned for 6 months. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Article alerts

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Article_alerts on the flip side of this page, I can see proposals for splitting Wrexham A.F.C. and Peterborough United F.C. but can't find any discussion or what was proposed being split. Am mysitifed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wrexham article currently has a tag at the top of the History section saying "It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled History of Wrexham A.F.C.. (Discuss)" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.....and the same with Peterborough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
My bad. I removed the one on Peterborough as the article is only 18kb in prose size, the editor who tagged it has retired, and there is no talk page discussion. Wrexham is at 32kb so getting sizeable but still significantly under the 50kb size limit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sékou Touré (footballer)

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

So this is a bit of a weird one, I was combing through the 2003 deaths category, came across Sékou Touré (footballer). The first thing I noticed was that his death date was November 30, 2002. I went to other language Wikis to see if this was just a typo and they also went with 2003 or 2002, but then I noticed additional discrepancies. On the German wiki, his date of death is April 2, 2003, on the French wiki, his date of death is February 1, 2003. The other language Wiki's Touré all use varying versions of the dates I've listed, so I am very perplexed. Rusted AutoParts 01:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I had a look as well and annoyingly, both dates are mentioned. NFT has date of death as 30 Nov 2002 but Football Database (which is linked on the German, French and Polish Wikis) has 2 Apr 2003. I can't see where the February date comes from though. Might be worth adding a note that the date of death is disputed until we can get a definitive answer. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a bit. Nehme1499 09:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This contemporary report of his death on afrik.com says 2 April 2003. Footballdatabase.eu, which may or may not be RS, has the same. L'Équipe's database, which should be RS, has 4 February 2003. The only source I can find for 30 Nov 2002 is NFT, which isn't RS for its specialist subject, let alone for birth and death dates. Not sure I'd pick them ahead of other alternatives. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
2 April/4 February looks it might be confusion around US/European date formats (2/4 vs 2/4)....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
That would make sense. With the amount of players that have an NFT link, I always thought it was reliable (for post 2000 internationals anyway, it's quite hit and miss before that) although it definitely seems wrong this time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Well spotted. And the date of 1 February on the French WP page is sucked into the infobox direct from Wikidata, where it was recently changed from 2 April citing L'Équipe, which doesn't give that date... so that can be ignored. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the afrik.com website which I see it is sourced in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Nations League (Finals)?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

How should the competition be named in national team and player articles for teams who finished in the top three in 2019 and 2021?

  1. UEFA Nations League Finals: 2021
  2. UEFA Nations League: 2020–21

I'm indifferent, as long as there is consistency between articles (and what we write in the infobox and honours section). Nehme1499 21:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

My vote (not particularly bothered either) would be the second one as it implies more strongly that they were in the highest placings of the whole competition, rather than only the little tournament at the end, if that makes sense...? Crowsus (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Which makes sense, as it's a bit like saying UEFA Champions League: 2020–21, rather than UEFA Champions League: 2021. Nehme1499 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This is also reflected in the banners (Nations League, Champions League). Nehme1499 09:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The only issue I see is with national team infoboxes: it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, 1 UEFA Nations League appearance for Portugal (as all UEFA members participate in the Nations League): we would have to note that it's 1 appearance in the Finals specifically. Nehme1499 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Olympics medals on national team articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've noticed some senior national team articles include Olympics medals (including post-1992 medals) as honours in their honours section, for example Spain, Italy, Cameroon and others, although the Olympics has been an under-23 tournament plus 3 overage players since 1992. At the same time some team articles don't include these medals on the senior team page and only include them on the under-23 team page, for example Mexico. Is there a correct and agreed approach for this on Wikipedia? Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For me, Olympic honours since the Olympics have been played with non-senior national teams should not be on the senior football team articles. However, an argument can be made for Olympic honours before the U23 era. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Paul above; I would include them in senior national team page for tournaments until 1988, and in the U23 national team page for tournaments since 1992. Nehme1499 06:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Felisxv7

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I mean, it's not Iggy the Swan level but I've finally graduated to my first copycat account due to edits made on Israel national football team page.

Just seeking people's opinion on whether there's anything to be done, or do I just leave it, or what? It's only been a couple of edits so far but I'll quickly steer into 3RR territory.

Cheers all, Felixsv7 (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: There were a few copycats of my nickname at one point and they all got perm banned. If it is a copycat, you should report to the user. They will most likely be blocked. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You could report it at WP:UAA as WP:IMPERSONATOR of they continue to edit. Spike 'em (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've reported and they've been banned but IPs continue to revert without explanation and I'm now beyond 3RR on Israel national football team if someone could please take a look? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the edits, don't know if it's fully back to how it was. If they continue, warn them and report it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Their latest revert came with the summary "not your country - KEEP OUT". Strange degree of nationalism. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 FC Flora season

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Doesn't this season page fail WP:NSEASONS?? Govvy (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It fails the "top professional league" requirement as the Meistriliiga isn't fully professional but there could be an argument that because they've qualified for the Europa Conference League that it is still notable. Most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE match reports though. I'm no expert in Estonian football so there may be significant coverage out there that can be added to the article to improve it to meet the "mainly well-sourced prose" requirement. I'd still be tempted to AfD it tbf. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the Meistriliiga page, the league has been fully professional since 2020. Is this inaccurate? – PeeJay 13:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article used to source the statement says (according to Google Translate): "It must be taken into account that for the first time, thanks to solidarity support, our league is fully professional, which creates a completely new situation and even closer competition" (statement by the president of the Estonian FA). No idea what a "solidarity support" is, though. Nehme1499 13:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd looked at WP:FPL which has the Meistriliiga as not fully professional but I'm guessing that now needs updated. If so, then the Flora season would pass NSEASONS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the FPL list as it does indeed pass NSEASONS post 2020. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You're moving a bit too fast there. Any addition to FPL list should be first discussed at the FPL talk page. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
BlameRuiner, should I undo my edit until consensus has been reached? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with BR; we should discuss this on the FPL talk page. Nehme1499 15:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see no discussion at WP:FPL talk page yet. I looked at FPL earlier, but didn't really look at the league page. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
the status of the Estonian league should be discussed at WT:FPL. GiantSnowman 20:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Tribal Football

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just want to double check if Tribal Football is a good/valid source. I'd usually believe it's not but the article in question is an interview. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've always thought it a tad tabloidy, but never seen any issues with it. My suggestion would be use in moderation. GiantSnowman 20:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Current Competitions - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all,

What is the general consensus for having a Current Competitions section on each national team page? Example shown below.

If people are in favour:

1) Do we show all competitions within the previous twelve months (could get extensive with UEFA nations)
2) Is it an independent section or a sub-heading under Results and Fixtures or Competitive Record?

Current competitions

Main article: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A
Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification          
1   Serbia 8 6 2 0 18 9 +9 20 Qualification to 2022 FIFA World Cup — 2–2 3–2 4–1 3–1
2   Portugal 8 5 2 1 17 6 +11 17 Advance to play-offs 1–2 — 2–1 5–0 1–0
3   Republic of Ireland 8 2 3 3 11 8 +3 9 1–1 0–0 — 0–1 1–1
4   Luxembourg 8 3 0 5 8 18 −10 9 0–1 1–3 0–3 — 2–1
5   Azerbaijan 8 0 1 7 5 18 −13 1 1–2 0–3 0–3 1–3 —
Source: FIFA, UEFA
Rules for classification: Tiebreakers

Any input would be appreciated.

Cheers, Felixsv7 (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The competitive record and results and fixtures sections should contain information on current competitions as well as historic ones so I don't see the need to include a separate section for current competitions. The information is already there and there should be links to the relevant articles for anyone interested in reading more anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I realised that I didn't give my opinion but it's effectively the same as @Stevie fae Scotland:'s Felixsv7 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above; no need for a "Current Competitions" section when the information is already present in other sections. Nehme1499 21:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Mauritius

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Where should the Mauritian Premier League article be located? What name? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What do English language sources use? GiantSnowman 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
RSSSF and NFT call it "Premier League", while GSA more specifically "Mauritius Premier League". Soccerway uses "Mauritian League". This article (among others), though, seem to imply that the official sponsored name is "Barclays Mauritius Premier League". I would probably move the article to Mauritius Premier League. Nehme1499 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Thanks for that, Nehme. Could you start an RM, please? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As of today's (2021-10-12) results, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_%E2%80%93_UEFA_Group_B claims Greece is "eliminated" (E) and both Sweden and Spain are "assured of at least the play-offs" (X). I don't think this is correct. If Greece wins the final two games, they can end up either first or second in the group. One of Sweden and Spain may end up third in the group. HenrikB (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Someone/something updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_%E2%80%93_UEFA_Group_B. Now it says: 1. Sweden, 2. Spain (X), 3. Greece (Y), where (X) Assured of at least the play-offs, can still qualify directly; (Y) Cannot qualify directly, may only advance to the play-offs. This is still incorrect: Greece can win the group, and both Spain and Sweden may end up third.

HenrikB (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So, if Greece win both their games (against Spain and Kosovo), they would end up on 15 points. Spain and Sweden are still to play each other again. If Spain win they get another 3 points, putting them on 16, which is more than Greece can possibly get. On the other hand, if Spain do not beat Sweden, then Sweden must end up on either 16 (if Spain v. Sweden is a draw) or 18 if Sweden win. Again, this is more points than Greece can possibly obtain. So I think it's correct to say that Greece can only qualify for the play-offs. I think you're right though that neither Spain or Sweden are guaranteed of a play-off place yet, they can both finish third, but if they do then the other must win the group. BigDom (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way, Spain are guaranteed of at least a play-off place even if they finish third in the group. According to FIFA World Cup qualification#Europe, the best two teams from the UEFA Nations League rankings that did not qualify for the play-offs via the group stages join the 10 group runners up in the play-off stage. As Spain finished 2nd in those rankings, they would qualify for the play-offs even if they finish third in the group. So it seems everything is correct (if a little confusing). BigDom (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2021–22 Serie A

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

In the Stadiums and locations table, is the additional column really needed for last season results? It doesn't seem to match the rest of the table. Not to mention it underlaps the map on my screen. That column also appears on previous seasons. Govvy (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally like that info. -Koppapa (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It sounds irrelevant to the section title. --SuperJew (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I can see that having that info in the article is useful, but it looks really weird being jammed into a table entitled "Stadiums and locations". Would the best solution be to find a new name for the table? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The section heading could just be changed to "Teams", then it would be relevant. This is how it's done in some other league season articles e.g. 2021–22 Division 1 Féminine. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

... this type of editing has returned with a few new random pages added in to the mix. :( Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wheel-warring at Neo Quimica Arena

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article for the stadium sometimes known as Arena Corinthians has been moved a few times in the last year. Probably worth keeping an eye on. Hack (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be moved to Neo Química Arena as I can see the first i is a variant of that letter. You have actually pointed that out on the relevant talk page, I agree with that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Players GDPR claim and implications on WikiProject Football?

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion

I'm sure a few of you will have read about it in the news recently, but 850 players are threatening legal action regarding the use of their personal data on the internet. You can read about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58873132

Essentially they aren't happy that companies are publishing and using personal data about them including performance stats but also things like their height, place of birth etc. All of these statistics are commonplace on wiki player articles.

I appreciate that all (or at least the vast majority) of statistics mentioned in player articles is sourced from openly available sources on the internet such as the BBC, Soccerbase, Soccerway, 11v11 and club official websites, but where does this leave Wikipedia, and ultimately us as editors?

Are we likely to see any comeback on a personal level for publishing data sourced from other websites in player articles? Things like match statistics can't be protected, but I could see the players being successful regarding requiring their consent to share things like height, personal biographical info such as place and date of birth etc. Much of that personal bio info is published by the player's clubs themselves.

Ultimately I suppose if it came to it then Wikipedia would prohibit that information being published and strict guidelines would be enforced. According to the BBC article, players want to charge an annual fee to companies using that data and obviously a platform like Wikipedia wouldn't entertain that.

Reminds me of when the Premier League (and possibly EFL) claimed their fixtures lists were copyright and couldn't be published in full. FilthyDon (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I think we should cross that bridge when we get there. We won't get resolution of this until the case is settled, and because of the nature of the request I reckon this will take years to settle. Personally, I think it's a ridiculous motion, but if it goes through will certainly have implications to every public person in the world and not just athletes.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
We source information to reliable sources. So long as we source the information, there's no issues. If the players successfully get the info removed from where we source it, then we should also remove it. It's worth remembering that if somehow reporting what another site did would come at a cost, Google knowledge graph would owe so much more than we do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Problem they will have is internet archives. We'll still be able to source the boring stuff they're whining about well after they're dead. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if and when a data breach is found to have occurred for commercial firms, I feel Wikipedia will definitely and rightly be obliged to take down anything that might come under the law. I have some doubt it will come to that - the older 2020 article talks about players not being remunerated for use of their data, but I reckon it would be covered somewhere in their contracts. Do they think their wages all come from gate money and TV? These companies pay the clubs who then pay the players. It may be that it becomes much less freely available and then we (Wikimedia Foundation) would have to look much more stringently at BLP sources if unauthorised use of personal info became as closely guarded as copyright etc. But we'd have two wait for the outcome ('threatening action' is a long way before that) - and would this only be a UK legal ruling? Crowsus (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm 100% certain nothing will come out of this supposed legal action. They're claiming their caps/goals is personal data despite being publicly available? What's next, they'll try to ban publishing the post-match reports with linups and goalscorers? That's ridiculous. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment - wouldn't disagree in saying this problem won't be in effect straight away and what BlameRuiner said about it being "ridiculous".
As with playing data: not sure why the footballers are claiming caps/goals is personal data where it is definitely known to people who watch them play, it is common knowledge that they've made an appearance, whether they scored, keeping clean sheets if they are goalkeepers and discipline stats recorded as fans and people who watch the matches on TV know they've participated in football. Knowing this sort of data should not be a problem and firms should continue doing that sort of thing as normal.
The DOB's and/or place of births is somewhat more problematic in a small number of cases: I've encountered four problems with DOB's on Wikipedia which has been resolved upon agreement: Jonathan Grounds, Àngel Rangel, Kyle Naughton and Dwight Gayle had their DOB's changed because, I think, Soccerbase and other sources published the wrong info. Discussions from Jonathan Grounds, Talk:Kyle Naughton and Talk:Dwight Gayle has come to agreement that the current versions shows the right DOB's. (In fact, this profile still has the incorrect birthday even though there was agreement it should be the 17th.) There are probably other related problems I have not encountered.
As to height: I had a look at the BBC source linked with the article posted by the user who started this section off and found out there had been a problem saying the height of a certain player was [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53557706 shrunk to 5 ft 7 in. There are plenty of problems with that part of personal info in the way different sources gave out different heights. Surely the club websites pick up the correct info from paper work etc. from these players.
If in the worst case scenario (I think) that certain footballers don't want their date of birth public, this is going to cause numerous problems among naming our articles. If, say Ben Watson (footballer, born July 1985) and Ben Watson (footballer, born December 1985) opted not to give away their date of births to the public, the naming of the articles would be a problem as the DOB's would be unsourced if they removed that info from the sources already given. It makes no sense to rename them to what clubs they play for "e.g. "Ben Watson (Charlton footballer)" as the page will inevitably get moved if he moves to a different club.
Hopefully the problem can be solved if the players agree the firms can use their data properly and get any compensation if required. Per comments above, particularly the end of the third paragraph of the opening comment by FilthyDon, many of us can continue to edit normally and watch out for any disruption as well. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully we're not one of the 150 sites they want to deal with? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Re "150 sites", I bet that includes user generated domains like transfermarkt etc.. I never say what they said is correct, other sites should do but sometimes they get it wrong, see the DOB and height paragraphs in my comment above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
How would this (if it ever came to pass) impact information sourced to actual physical books, rather than other websites? It's not like they can ask for the info to be erased from books which already exist. Most players will have had their DOB listed in something like the Sky Sports Football Yearbook, could they really stop us reiterating that...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296

This court ruling has implications for doorbell cameras. I wouldn't worry about removing those yet either though. If there are any legal ramifications then we'll be notified by legal specialists at Wikipt. Until and unless that happens then don't worry about it. EchetusXe 17:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lucas Hernandez

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Will be spending the majority of the season behind bars. Might be an idea to keep an eye on the page for the next few days. Just a potential heads up. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have put that page on my own watchlist. One question: where is the source for your addition REDMAN2019? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Iggy the Swan, here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
We should put the page on watch, but it's not a fact that he is serving the term yet. He is currently appealing, and will only spend 10 days behind bars.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
As a side issue, this article is part of a discussion on Talk:Lucas Hernández on the possibility of returning the Bayern one whence it came where I gave out the instructions, if the pages do get moved, this one should be moved last. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix clubs and moving clubs...

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Right, just wondering as I couldn't see anything clearcut in archives. Were/are there any criteria for when a club is considered a continuation (like Rangers F.C.) or a new club...or is it solely on sources? Also given the established practice of articles like Los Angeles Dodgers and Sydney Swans covering before and after moves and name changes, should thought be given to a merge of Airdrieonians F.C. and Clydebank F.C. (1965), and Milton Keynes Dons F.C. and Wimbledon F.C.? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule about whether or not a new article is created when these sorts of things happen. Each situation is quite different and we should reflect that so that it is accurate. That greatest XI link on the Airdrie website is referring to players who played for Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and not Clydebank. The current Airdrie bought over Clydebank and used their licence to get back into the SFL after the old club folded. Their SFL licence number would've been the same (until the SPFL's formation in 2013) but the clubs are different so in that instance, I think it's right that there are two different articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Rangers are a little tricky but consensus seems to be that the club is the same, it's just the holding company is different. AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon are two separate clubs and MK Dons disowned any Wimbledon history so it seems reasonable to keep those separate. I think it is common practice to have separate articles on separate iterations where the identity has completely changed from the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: With Airdrie, several players from the last team in 2002 then played for Airdrie United. No idea about the coach and staff though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Division managers template

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

What is the correct input over this? Because so far, I have seen four types of templates:

  1. Template:Premier League managers, ordered by team, without the wikilink on the team;
  2. Template:Eredivisie managers, ordered by team, with the wikilink on the team;
  3. Template:Primeira Liga managers, ordered by manager surname, with the wikilink on the team;
  4. Template:Danish Superliga head coaches (not even in the "standard name"), ordered by manager surname, without the team specified.

Which pattern should we use? Plus, should we establish a pattern at all? BRDude70 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The Premier League one probably makes the most sense. Nehme1499 01:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Premier League one is best as it adheres to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and team is a helpful piece of information. Spike 'em (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, use the Premier League one - ordered by team, and team is not linked. GiantSnowman 08:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Also agree, as the template is called Managers, the club articles shouldn't be linked. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I think it should be ordered by team, include the team, but no need to link the team. Also think we can have the full name of the manager (as is done on Template:A-League head coaches). Regarding the name, usage changes according to country/are so there isn't a "standard name". --SuperJew (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that the Premier League one should become standard.--EchetusXe 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Islam Slimani

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Regardless of being Algeria's all-time top scorer, is the separate article really needed? I restored the list back on Islam Slimani which isn't a big article. I see the new article as an unneeded content fork. thoughts? Delete or not? Govvy (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is valid in and of itself, provided a bit more prose is added to the lead (similarly to List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri, for example). Nehme1499 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
My understanding was that a national team's top scorer merited a separate article? GiantSnowman 11:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I remember we discussed this before but I'm not 100% sure what the consensus was. I had a quick look back and it seems like there was consensus that a limit be applied to when a "list of goals scored by x" article is needed but there wasn't a consensus on what the minimum threshold should be (see here). FWIW, I think top scorers (including historical) who have 30+ goals are notable enough to merit an article. For someone who has never been the top scorer, you'd need at least 75 I'd say. Depends how many people have scored that many to determine just how notable that is tbf. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need a "minimum threshold" per se; the important thing is that there is enough information surrounding the topic to be able to write a few paragraphs of prose. Obviously, being the national team top scorer is a very strong indication that the article will be notable. It's very similar to saying that passing a SNG is a presumption that GNG is passed, but an article may pass the GNG without the SNG. Nehme1499 12:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Slimani has more international goals than Gareth Bale and Alfredo Di Stéfano, both of whose equivalent lists are FLs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
You see this article on Wikipedia but not List of international goals scored by Harry Kane or List of international goals scored by Mohamed Salah who are more notable and has scored more times than Slimani. Surprised the Algerian has a separate article of that type than both mentioned players. One day they may well have a separate article. In terms of competitions, the goals are spread out including the ongoing 2022 World Cup competition. But just being top scorer of a country and the only entry from that national team where Abdelhafid Tasfaout did not have his own entry isn't as noteworthy as some other similar articles. He will probably score more in later days though. Aside from Mohamed Salah, there could be other active players who have scored more than Slimani.
The template shows only retired African players plus Slimani at this moment, I'm sure one day more Africans will have their own entries, specifically Salah for being more notable. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Just like @GiantSnowman & @Nehme1499, I thought the validity and notability of such lists is related to people who have either at one point in time been all time top goal scorers or are currently top goal scorers. That was the reason given when those lists were deleted somewhere in 2016. If that is the rule the article must stand. After all as indicated by ChrisTheDude, the subject has more goals than Gareth Bale and Alfredo Di Stéfano whose articles are existing due to the same reasons of being top scorers of the countries at one point in time.
@Iggy the Swan, Just because all the articles of African players are retired does not mean the article must be taken off. I believe those articles which are of other African players have not been created due to lack of interest + lack of references and other factors, not because of any other reasons. Both Mohammed Salah and Harry Kane are not top scorers of their country, so just because they have more goals than Islam Slimani does not mean they merit a separate article. If the rules are that it must be of someone who is or was at one point in time the top scorer then the rules must apply as such.
Based on the consensus reached here on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Zlatan Ibrahimović are what I made my statement on. Ampimd (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that these articles need to be taken off or anything else relating to deleting content. Salah and Kane are not far off from the top scorer for their country which is a good point I didn't think of at the time of my previous response. I suspect at some point this decade that Riyad Mahrez may also have his own version in there as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Transfers and loans in club season articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, where do people think the line should be drawn on including players in transfers and loans tables in club season articles? I think generally we include players down to those on professional development contracts, i.e. U21/U23/development squad players. Would people support a cut off here? Of course there are some instances of players too young to turn professional breaking into the first team, who obviously should be included. Is including scholars in the tables who have had no involvement with the first team going too far? LTFC 95 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

if the clubs officially announce it its fair I think, like if a pl club announces they signed some 19 year old from league two whos never played a match before its fair to include as they felt the need to announce signing him most young players just show up/sign without being announcedMuur (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Steve Bruce

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

a lot of sources are stating that his next match is his 1000th as a manager and yet we list him as his next game being his 1001st match as a manager. where exactly does our count fuck up? maybe there's one game counted where he wasn't actually manager? some sites like soccerbase fuck up like that where they include matches they shouldnt such as, if a manager is announced the same day of a match *after* the match, lets say at 10pm the same day they play (keith hill for example who was announced as bolton manager a few hours after bolton played a league one match) as they only do "day appointed" and "day left" and count all matches in those stats when technically one match shouldnt be (same for if someone is sacked in the morning, then the team plays later that day. point is, bruce is apparnetly at 999 matches right now and will be at 1000 in 12 hours. we claim he is *already* at 1000. sky sports, newcastle, itv and more all say that he will get to 1000 matches tomorrow/today (timezone). there's a counting error in our stats whether thats someone botching it on his page itself or one of the sites counting a match they shouldnt.Muur (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The 1000 claim comes from the League Managers' Association, and all the other sources are basing their reports on that, as far as I can see. Annoyingly the LMA website does not give details of how his alleged 999 games are broken down by club, so there's no way to compare the stats listed at Soccerbase (which gives a total of 1000 games to date)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the English National Football Archive he has taken charge of 991 games before the start of this season (Newcastle play their ninth game of the season on Saturday). It has 269 games with Birmingham City, with one fewer draw than Soccerbase. The start and end dates are the same so I don't know where the discrepancy arrived. But I will change the Wikipedia article as it's being widely reported that he is currently on 999 games.--EchetusXe 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I've checked and Birmingham City had 69 draws between 12 December 2001 and 23 November 2007 so yes, Soccerbase is simply wrong.--EchetusXe 08:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Agrees. ENFA are counting eactly the same matches as Soccerbase, but their total comes to 269 as against Soccerbase's 270. I think it's just that Soccerbase have added up wrong. One reason for the draws discrepancy is that Soccerbase record the result after 90 minutes for cup/playoff games, regardless of whether there's a positive result after extra time or whether it goes to penalties, while ENFA only count it as a draw if the match is decided on penalties. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The managerstats.co.uk website also tallies 70 Birmingham City draws though that website address appears to have stopped updating at this moment as they still list Garry Monk as their current manager. I have no idea where the extra draw came from, by checking Birmingham's results from Bruce's first match, they lost to Wolves so the error could not have been made from his first match in charge. From Soccerbase, since he took over from 12 December 2001, it appears he recorded 9 draws including a play-off win vs Norwich. Adding that onto the 9+16+12+13+10=60 (his full seasons with the club) plus two draws before leaving on 19 November 2007 gives a total of 71 draws which is one more than what the site has given him. There is definitely something wrong in collecting the managerial data between certain sites. It's not the first time someone has been querying about how many matches have they actually played/managed, if you recall Jon Stead's match where commentators claimed he was on 700 appearances on 8 May 2021. Data mishandling has been recently discussed at that section where I mentioned cases where DOB has been inaccurately displayed. The commentators will probably mention "one thousandth" when I see it on Match of the Day 2 later this weekend. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. On Bruce's manager page on Soccerbase, it has 100/70/100. ENFA has 100/69/100. But if you actually add up the WDL breakdowns at the foot of each season's page on Soccerbase, plus the bits each end, it comes to 99/71/99, i.e they're counting results after extra time as draws on the season pages, but as 1 win and 1 loss in the manager totals. So they're counting the result of the same individual match differently depending on where they're counting it, as well as not being able to add up... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
We should take the current version of Steve Bruce as correct with the ENFA source already in place. I was also summing up all types of results and came up with the same result as Struway2. Counting the playoff win, the two Carling cup wins and the FA Cup loss gives 102/67/100 which still totals 269 but the ENFA sees this as draws as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I am no expert, but I would have thought that every page of Soccerbase would "pull" from a single database, so I'm befuddled that a game can apparently be treated differently depending on which page it is being reported. But hey, like I say, I am no expert....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it is established that Soccerbase has failed to sum up his draws correctly by adding a draw which did not exist. If they see this section, they might have realised that they might have made a mathematical error in their calculations. Soccerbase will need to change that so it shows one less draw than what we see. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
im finding that soccerbase is pretty bad for manager stats. they just go "date to date", and that causes problems a lot.Muur (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why Gordon Ramsay is part of WikiProject Football? o.O.Pincheira22 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Presumably because of Gordon_Ramsay#Football.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:San Lorenzo de Almagro templates

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Why does Category:San Lorenzo de Almagro templates show up on Diego Dabove? Is this a technical issue? I tried purging but nothing happened. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone had put that category outside the noinclude in the template, so it got transcluded into the player's article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Why are there player articles in there now? This is really weird. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That category had been placed outside the noinclude part of {{San Lorenzo de Almagro managers}}, so it was transcluded into the manager articles. I've moved it inside, but the change will take time to filter through. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have noticed there is an issue on the way Soccerway displays content for former players turned managers (I have found three players to provide examples: Russell Martin (Swansea manager), Wayne Rooney and Jayne Ludlow. I hope there is still a route to display their playing stats from that website if in the case they are only sourced from Soccerway. Some articles use Soccerway as their only reference on stats but if they become managers the website will replace playing with managerial stats, as Wayne Rooney's was visible here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Just source it with the archived link --SuperJew (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a pity no-one has archived the profile of Russell Martin when playing stats were still viewable but I think Soccerbase covers that anyway. Wayne Rooney's has plenty of other sources to cover that information as well. Failing to archive at certain points makes that suggestion impossible to do unless people archive them to the Wayback Machine more often or we source them from other WP:RS. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It gets automatically archived when it's added as a proper ref. Hack (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I was writing to Soccerway/Opta support about this about 5 years ago or so, and they replied they weren't planning to fix it anytime soon (or rather they didn't see it as any sort of issue, that what I got from the response). --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Not being able to view player statistics isn't an issue? That's a weird response. Nehme1499 22:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Question for reference: crowdiest league

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The MLS has 27 teams and the Argentine first tier 26 teams. Are these the most crowded first-tier leagues in the world? Geschichte (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes.--EchetusXe 12:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
MLS of course has two parallel top divisions, so that's a bit different, but I wasn't aware of the Argentinian one and that's mad - 26 teams in one division? Do they each play 50 games a season?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
No they play each other just the once. Not just how they resolve the fairness of who plays home or away. EchetusXe 17:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Argentine also used to have 30 teams in 2016-2017 (only 30 matchdays though - single round-robin + 1 extra match with local rival)--BlameRuiner (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I also discovered that up until the 2007–08 Liga Indonesia Premier Division, this first tier consisted of 36 teams of two conferences. Of course this overcrowded league was not an FPL. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably not quite a fair comparison but the 2000 Brazilian championship was an 116-team tournament. Hack (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Barca 6-1

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Hello. Amakuru made this edit. Is he right by moving the page here? Since when did the standard for naming football matches change? @Amakuru:. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not - see Talk:FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C.#Requested move 15 March 2021 where there was consensus not to move the article from 'FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C.' - I have reverted this undiscussed move accordingly. GiantSnowman 21:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That reminds me... I have started an RMCD on this page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The standard is not to include F.C. in football match names, because it's obvious that you're talking about football clubs but also to have the year in brackets, because obviously a particular scoreline may occur in several different seasons. See for example Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
And the requested move mentioned above had nothing to do with this minor formatting discrepancy, but rather to move to the alternative title "La Remontada".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This just highlights once again that we don't have a consistent approach to this, as we have the above-mentioned Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989) (no FCs but has date) but we also have Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996) (has both FCs and date) and Reading F.C. 5–7 Arsenal F.C. (has FCs but no date)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a RFC on naming conventions for this... GiantSnowman 10:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, we don't need to have the F.C. in those titles, and the year is good to have, especially if you're browsing for the article in a list or category. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Why don't we need the 'FC/F.C.' - if there was an article called Barcelona 5–5 Liverpool (2025) would the general reader have a clue what it was about? The 'FC/F.C.' provides key context. GiantSnowman 10:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If the reader found that article, I am sure they would wonder how did a football that hasn't been played yet already have a score of 5-5. Not to mention 99% of the time, most readers will know it's about football. There maybe some article's that could be confused for Rugby teams, but even still, all they need to do is click on the link and look at the article. Hardly an issue. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Well no, it is an issue - we want to aid navigation, meaning that we cannot wait until a reader has clicked on a link and got to the wrong article before shrugging our shoulders and saying "good luck finding the right article you want to read!". GiantSnowman 11:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
GS is right: I don't see why we should remove the "F.C."'s from the title. Nehme1499 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, article titles should be consistent with the parent article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989), since there are so many Arsenals found and fewer Liverpools, it could mean the clash from England or it could have been a clash from South America, as I see from the disambiguation pages there's an Arsenal from Brazil and a Liverpool from Uruguay who participates in the South American equivalent of continental competitions. I doubt that actually happened though in that year. That 1989 article should use what ChrisTheDude pointed out and in the future there could be another notable 2–0 away win for Arsenal as well as that scoreline is more likely than a 5–7 or an 11–1 scoreline. And in the case of Barcelona, I found a Barcelona S.C. which is not what we want in terms of that 6–1 scoreline vs Paris Saint-Germain. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

LASK Abbreviation

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Within the 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League and 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage articles, I have discovered another problem. Within group A, the three-letter abbreviation for LASK (AKA LASK Linz) is LAS. However, the official UEFA abbreviation for LASK (AKA LASK Linz) is exactly that (LASK), not LAS. Please change it so that the abbreviation for LASK Linz is LASK. Spaceworker2 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can fix it? Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Spaceworker2: Could you supply a source to the official UEFA abbreviation what you mean? In general in the Wikipedia tables we use three letter abbreviations, so LASK would not be possible. --SuperJew (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The convention of using three letters is just a convention, and can easily be ignored for cases like this. – PeeJay 17:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spaceworker2 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzukGur28G0 (the video is of the highlights of LASK v Maccabi Tel Aviv, it shows LASK's abbreviation as LASK).

refs in the lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, am I the only one to have had their eyes burned out by the number of refs in this lead? Just curious. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit of overkill there. Any thing more than 2 (maybe 3 at max) is overkill. With that said, I remember someone posted one here once, where there was a ridiculous one with something like 30+ references for one sentence in an article, but I can't remember which article it was. RedPatch (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
In general the lede shouldn't contain references at all. It should be a very short summary of the most important points of the article (much like an abstract), and all these points should appear, expanded and referenced, in the body of the article. --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yup, we should probably trim the fat on the lead. Also surprised that it doesn't have a catchy well known name like "the Red Derby", or "El Northwestico".--Ortizesp (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, many refs in the lead on that page really should not be in there. If this was ever going to be a good article, those refs would need to be removed or relocated. It should follow the same format as the Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry and South Wales derby articles which I see are ranked good. But yes that article in question should be improved on agreement with other users. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE applies, as does WP:REFBOMB. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

From reading the talk page it looks like an editor was concerned about the "biggest rivalries" and "biggest rivalry, above even their own local derbies" statements being challenged. --dashiellx (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Olympics from the WP:NFOOTY criteria

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following the recent closure of a discussion which has changed WP:NOLYMPICS to grant notability only to competitors who won medals, there is a proposal to amend related guidelines to remove Olympic-based notability.

As far as I'm aware, this will have no impact on women's football, as women's Olympic teams are full age and all matches classed as Tier 1 internationals. However, it would mean male footballers who played at the Olympics but didn't win a medal or meet NFOOTY in another way would no longer be deemed notable unless they met another one of the NFOOTY requirements.

The discussion is taking place here for anyone who has a view. Cheers, Number 57 13:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Randriamamy

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Mathyas Randriamamy is notable because he made his international debut for Madagascar. However, he is still a youth player at Paris Saint-Germain. Should we include him in {{Paris Saint-Germain F.C. squad}}? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Only if he has a senior kit number and/or has been called-up to a senior team match (even as an unused sub). Otherwise, no. Nehme1499 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - you can be a senior international without playing at senior club level (Javier Mascherano etc.) and his international experience has no bearing on his club status. GiantSnowman 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 and GiantSnowman: He was called up for three or four matches on the bench last season, notable for a UCL match against IBFK. I will put him in the template. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Being on the first-team bench is not indicative of being a first-team player! GiantSnowman 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Appearing on the bench a few times last season does not make a player a member of the current squad, so if he's not done similar this season, then please remove him again. Spike 'em (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
And I'd also remove Fadiga, as he does not appear on the squad page nor has he appeared in any first team squads this season according to Soccerway ref on his page (again, last season has no bearing on this one). Spike 'em (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: Fadiga must be on the first team because he is neither part of the B team or the youth academy. He's under contract at PSG but he basically doesn't play. Same situation for Jonathan Mutombo, Anfane Ahamada, Massinissa Oufella, and Alexandre Fressange. The difference is that Fadiga has an article, and because he has made previous appearances he should be on the template. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No he doesn't. If neither the club nor any other sources list him as a first team player then why would we? What he did last season does not affect this one. Having an article is irrelevant if he isn't part of the squad. Spike 'em (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_147&oldid=1137383181"