Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120

Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

A.C. Milan or Milan?

I've noticed on a a fair amount of articles that instead of seeing A.C. Milan I just see Milan, so I've often had to click on the link to see if it goes to A.C. or Inter, it's been annoying me a bit. I just wanted to ask what other people think, if we should have the A.C. bit in the infobox and headings also? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd include the AC. They might be commonly known as just "Milan" in Italy, but I think beyond that they're normally referred to as "AC Milan". Number 57 12:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The infobox in the A.C. Milan article should certainly match the title of the page. I think in the body of the text it is reasonable to use Milan as an abbreviation as long as the first use in each section uses AC Milan and there are no grounds for confusion. The text "... officially known as Stadio Giuseppe Meazza after the former player who represented both Milan and Internazionale" is an example where it shouldn't be used.   Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: The problem has nothing to do with the main A.C. Milan article, it's player articles like Davide Calabria, Fabio Borini, Suso (footballer), etc. Look at the lead, and infobox. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with just calling them Milan. If the author intended the reader to intuit that the club mentioned were Inter, then they would write Inter. We don't write "Dundee FC" every single time we need to distinguish them from Dundee United, so why would we do it for Milan? – PeeJay 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would have helped if you'd given some examples. I entirely agree with you. Those examples are clearly wrong. The first mention at a minimum has to use AC Milan. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has different standards from a fan football forum. The club name should be clearly and unambiguously stated, not left to the intuition of the reader.   Jts1882 | talk  13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I go with PeeJay here, Milan is enough and clear, else it is Inter. Kante4 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's always that clear, Govvy (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. It wouldn't be clear to people not knowledgeable about Italian football. Our writing should be clear for everyone to read, not just the footy crowd.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If they're not knowledgeable about Italian football, why would they have any expectation that "Milan" might refer to some other club in the first place? – PeeJay 14:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone with vague knowledge of Italian football might have heard of AC Milan and Inter and be left wondering about this club called Milan. Calling the club by its name is unambiguous and simpler as the Milan needs a pipe to redirect it to the club rather than the city. What is the sense in using [[AC Milan|Milan]] to hide the actual name of the club.   Jts1882 | talk  16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There's the same amount of sense in that as piping Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United. – PeeJay 18:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Since when were Manchester United F.C. or Manchester United the names of a major world city? Both are obviously referring to the club rather than the city of Manchester, The comparison fails on all logical levels.   Jts1882 | talk  19:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. You said piping to Milan was hiding the "actual name of the club", but that's not the case any more than piping to Manchester United is. – PeeJay 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

AC Milan = Milan. Internazionale = Inter. I have never known Inter to be referred to as Milan in any documents, news etc and AC Milan are themselves known as AC, Milan, AC Milan and this is a rather basic fact of football. The first mention in an article is likely very useful to use the formal name, but it is not critical beyond that so long as it is clear. This also applies to Liverpool F.C., we generally don't go around stressing the difference between the English and Uruguayan teams. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Konkorde summarised it all. FkpCascais (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nor Liverpool FC and Everton FC, even though Everton are based in Liverpool. With both places, it's sometimes a bigger potential problem to identify whether the Milan/Liverpool being linked and referred to is the club or the city. Using AC solves that for the Italian city, whereas it would look odd to use it for the English one in most contexts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowsus (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Crowsus here, I didn't think there could be issue with the city name of Milan, could there be a conflict in WP:COMMONNAME?? Govvy (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Everton have to do with this. – PeeJay 18:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Crowsus is referring to Everton, Liverpool, while are talking strictly about wikilinks, whete you should use the name of the article it is going to for clarity, but elsewhere the common or nickname is fine Koncorde (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

as far as i know A.C. is a common prefix, just like Ltd in the world of company name, or F.C., J.K. in football/sports. For disambiguation it was appeared in WP:article title, as well as it may be not pipe in the lead in case people confuse that the player plays for the city of Milan instead of the club. Most city of Italy had only one notable football club at the same time, with some rare case such as Cosenza Calcio 1914 and A.S. Cosenza Calcio, that appeared at the same season. Most case that do not pipe were telling they are different clubs as (self-claim) phoenix club and the real club, such as A.C. Ancona (Ancona Calcio) and U.S. Ancona 1905, or case such as bankruptcy of Parma F.C. and the establishment of Parma Calcio 1913.

All case did not applies to A.C. Milan. It just totally fine to pipe to Milan. For Internazionale = Inter or not, there were other clubs named "Internazionale " in Italy in the past in different city, but they were all defunct. But it did not help on the edit war on piping Inter Milan, as "Inter Milan", Inter and Internazionale all appeared in articles. Matthew_hk tc 01:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So... for Infoboxes and such, do you guys mind if we go with A.C. Milan? Govvy (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. There's no reason to unpipe unless there's a cause for ambiguity, and even then I would only do it on the first instance in the lead section, not the infobox. – PeeJay 07:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus for A.C. Milan or Milan

I just wanted to run a consensus on what people prefer, I prefer to go with A.C. Milan to be added to leads, Infoboxes, etc. I feel this would give better clarity to related articles, so are people For AC Milan or Against? Govvy (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment in lead, full name is fine, as A.C. is not well known as equivalent to F.C. (despite calcio means football), in infobox and subsequent mention, pipe to Milan. Matthew_hk tc 05:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. AC Milan in first mention in lede and as the title of infoboxes. Encylopaedias shouldn't assume knowledge of abbreviations. In longer articles I think the first mention in a section should be AC Milan as sections should be able to stand alone. In the player infoboxes, Milan is probably acceptable in the clubs played for section as its obviously referring to a football club, but I'd still wonder how encyclopaedic it is to use the abbreviation when first used.   Jts1882 | talk  07:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say people just pipe Bolton Wanderers F.C. to Bolton (or Bolton Wanderers in the first mention and then just Bolton in subsequent mention). For infobox, it just intended as supplement to the main text of the article. If they are confuse to which Milan, they can look at the main text to figure out. Matthew_hk tc 08:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• • I've never heard any policy that says sections are supposed to stand on their own. Surely if the name of an entity has been established earlier in the article, there's no need to keep going back to a longer name at the start of every section? I also generally don't think it's necessary to avoid abbreviating even at the first instance of the club's name appearing, as it's usually pretty obvious what the context is (e.g. "Gonzalo Higuain is an Argentinian footballer who plays as a forward for Italian club Milan"). I'm sure there are cases where it would be necessary to specify that you're referring to the club rather than the city, but those should be the exception rather than the reason for a wider rule. – PeeJay 07:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - What is the point in this section? People have already expressed their opinions above, and Wikipedia is not run on a !voting system. Regardless, for the record, I agree with Matthew_hk. – PeeJay 07:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay, I think you must be one of those stubborn people that really don't like change. I've noticed you don't like change on Manchester United articles, you protect them with an iron-will. I do admit I do the same with Spurs articles, but sometimes, for a reason or another there will be a question regarding how to represent information, it's more helpful to give informative explanations instead of back-hand-whit. Govvy (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to change - what I'm opposed to is change for change's sake, which is what this feels like. I appreciate people questioning the status quo, but in this case I don't see any reason for the status quo to change. While your argument carries some weight, I find it to be insufficient when it comes to changing a whole heap of articles that are actually just fine as they are. – PeeJay 14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Category naming - 'players' v 'footballers'

The standard naming convention for categories is 'TEAM players'. There are some agreed exceptions to this - for example Category:FC Bayern Munich footballers (following CFD). In relation to Spanish-language nations, there is no consistency - some categories are 'players' and some are 'footballers'. Two questions - is there any good reason for this (and don't you dare say ambiguity for multi-sport clubs, as that is a non-starter, given the articles are about the football section), and if not, can we agree that all categories should be named 'players' in-line with the standard naming convention? GiantSnowman 10:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Adama Traoré

Two players - both Malian, both born in June 1995, both midfielders (albeit it one is a winger). How to disambiguate them? Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1995) and Adama Traoré (footballer, born 5 June 1995). I'd suggest full DOB for both? GiantSnowman 12:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless they both turn otu to have middle names I don't see an alternative.--EchetusXe 12:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What are the odds of there being not one, not two but FIVE Adama Traores?! I miss Adama Traoré (Ivorian footballer) playing for Melbourne Victory. But yeah, for the sake of being consistent if one uses full DOB both should. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Presumably it's just a common name in that part of Africa and therefore similar to there being 12 footballers called John Smith -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there no argument for one being the primary topic, here? If so, the current disambig is fine. If not, use both full DOB.

Might be worth checking out Adama Traoré, as there are 5 entries, but one uses a different disambig. Adama Traoré (Ivorian footballer) should be Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1990), or Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1996) should be Adama Traoré (Spanish footballer) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 10:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

1895–96 Southampton St. Mary's F.C. season

In the player statistics and squad list there are Sergt. Inglis and Gunner Phillips with redirects back to the article. Is that really the right thing to do? Should the two player articles be made red-links? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The players don't pass NFOOTY so aren't eligible for articles, so redlinking them would be inappropriate. Given that other articles link to them, I think making them redirects to the only season in which they played for any known club seems appropriate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How do you know they are not eligible for articles? Also is't it better to delink them? Govvy (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How do you know they are not eligible for articles? - because the only record of them playing is these solitary appearances, when Southampton didn't play in a fully pro league. Thus they don't pass NFOOTY, and they definitely don't pass GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL, you're only going by what you see and not by any research done!! Besides, it's the late 19th century, still isn't best to delink them? What the point of a redirect, it's just looping back on it's self, any search engine will find the article anyway. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with ChrisTheDude regarding the presence of the redirects. However, given the wlinks in that season article merely provide a more circuitous route to the notes, they should probably be delinked. Nzd (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Tehran Province League

Also this article might need an admin to sort it out, there was an AfD for it and the result was a redirect in Jan 2018. However it got restored despite the outcome, I think it might need to be redirect and SALT'ed. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The AfD discussion seems to have centred around a lack of sources and a failure to establish notability, and there appears to have been a fair bit of work and additional sources added since then. It seems rather odd that a league in which Persepolis and Esteghlal competed would not be considered notable. Nzd (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't read Farsi, so... Notability in the English encyclopaedia?? Govvy (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:GNG specifically says that Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Nzd (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Foriegn language sources have the same might as contemporary sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice to know! But same problem still on the article and the talkpage, AfD said one thing, are we sticking to that, or allowing the change?? Assessment currently says redirect... Govvy (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD's only count if there is no clear change in the article being reviewed. It's the same deal as someone recreating an article that was deleted via AfD, and recreated with tonnes of sources. If it's signficantly different, a consensus needs to be made again. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Vittorio Scantamburlo

Is this person notable enough to pass GNG? He seemingly fails NFOOTY, and his only 'achievement' is 'discovering' several notable Italian players, which is the only thing about him covered by external links. Not sure if there really any achievement here at all, after working for 40 years as a Serie A/B youth coach, you're bound to pass across some future stars. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It pretty much depends on the source Ho scoperto Del Piero. La storia di Vittorio Scantamburlo is notable and reliable or not. For notability of the book as an wikipedia article, its requires a few book review. Since the subject of the book seem entirely about "Vittorio Scantamburlo", so if the book is notable , then the person is notable. Alternatively, dig out some news article that had significant coverage about the person. Matthew_hk tc 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena shirt

Romagna Centro Cesena

Home colours

I am not sure the current color of the team (as well as the outcome of the NOTGallery on shirt section), but the team used white-blue (stripe) in the past, which was shown in photos (iltirreno, Universitatea Cluj press release (team on the left is Romagna Centro Cesena), as well as stated in tuttocalciatori (Bianco-Azzurro), emiliaromagnasport.com (Bianco-Azzurro). Would someone that knew the coding for the infobox, fix the shirt? Matthew_hk tc 11:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the best I can do for the shirt. More pattern options can be found at {{Football_kit/pattern_list}}. The colour of the shorts and socks can be improved.   Jts1882 | talk  12:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess i have to learn the code myself after so many years not touching the shirt section. Matthew_hk tc 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Bangabandhu Cup participants : Philippines men's national team or Philippines 'B'

For Your General Information, after some heated edit warring over the past few days, you might be interested to view or comment upon this issue at : Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup.

These sorts of issues have come up several times in the discussions here. This one has gone straight to a dispute resolution process. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been in an argument with @FilFootyGuy: about what the Philippines team should be called, the discussion about which can be viewed on the article talk page, my talk page and his talk page. FilFootyGuy has been arguing that since the Philippines team didn't took most of their senior players to the tournament the team should be called Philippines 'B'. I on the other hand think that officially the team represented Philippines and not Philippines 'B', thus the B should not be displayed here. It would be very helpful if someone can help reaching a consensus here. Please ping me while replying.--Anbans 585 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

94.21.34.68

Hello. Could see somebody who is able please revert the edits of this IP user (User:94.21.34.68). They have been adding fantasy squads to a few clubs, namely at C.D. Trofense (which I restored) and Worcester City F.C.; but also a few others. R96Skinner (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I checked Special:Contributions/94.21.34.68. I restored Worcester City F.C., UD San Sebastián de los Reyes, Modena F.C. 2018, AD Unión Adarve, SpVgg Bayern Hof, CDA Navalcarnero, and Mezőkövesdi SE. Others have restored CF Sóller and US Pontet Grand Avignon 84. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Remind me the ip vandal from Korea, may be coincidence or some ip are compromised? Matthew_hk tc 01:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Hörður ísafjörður

Is Hörður ísafjörður likely to be notable? It is a club in the 4. deild karla (football) tier. The lowest rank of the Icelandic football league system. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It passes WP:FOOTYN because Hordur have played in the Icelandic Cup. However it failed (and continues to fail) WP:GNG due to a lack of sources.Dougal18 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

While finding sources I found already had an article at Knattspyrnufélagið Hörður. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles only need to pass WP:GNG if they do not have inherit notability from another notability guideline. The article is notable, and seems like it's been set as a redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Rossendale United F.C.

Hi, I've been working on the article for the now-defunct club Rossendale United F.C., and was just wondering if anybody would be willing to help me out with it? I don't think that the lead is long enough nor the what most of what the article is trying to address as very clear! Aha. I'd appreciate any kind of help. Thanks, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Vitale 5 looks perfectly fine to me? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

So you don't think that anything should be added to the lead? It just seems to short when other articles have much bigger ones. Best, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe try and get some more references in the article as most of the history section is unsourced. @Joe Vitale 5: Not Homura (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have an away day programme for the club that literally states everything that's in the article but I guess that that's not good enough? Best, JV5, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK

Polite reminder - if you have a football-related DYK on the main page, please can you include it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Did you know? GiantSnowman 11:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

1 color vs 2 color

Your inputs are welcomed in Template talk:2018–19 A-League table, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

1 colour, please. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Matilda Maniac, please put your statement in template talk page, not here Hhkohh (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This message is only to invite editors to comment there Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Inventive IP Editor returns

Special:Contributions/103.234.7.72 is back after a one week block in September, and is inventing again. Last reported here in this archive. @GiantSnowman: any chance of a (much) longer block this time. Starting on the cleanup now... Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gricehead:  Done - reverted and blocked for a year. GiantSnowman 12:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The mad Malaysian ip is back

• 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous thread about the vandal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 119#New ip vandal

The current ip: 2405:3800:82:E7FB:144C:A94F:7C94:7E2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Keep changing non-Malaysian to Malaysian nationality. Matthew_hk tc 11:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

He just literally change the ip within one day. 2405:3800:481:569C:B5FF:6E7:37FC:4E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked not long ago. Matthew_hk tc 12:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Opened an WP:ANI for the matter as he used 3 ips within 2 days, plus 4 more in 1 October/30 September. Matthew_hk tc 12:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman can you look at this? Hhkohh (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: what do you want me to do? The IPs are already blocked. GiantSnowman 12:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, should we put a range block? (for/32) Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No edits by that range in 24 hours... GiantSnowman 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Assistance

I am thoroughly cleaning up Carles Puyol's article, matching display of all sources for example. From what newspaper/website does this article come from in your opinion (please see here https://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/soccer/2010-07-11-defending-the-caveman/)? The Sunday Times? The Times of Zambia (due to the ZA on the website's address)? Another? I'm at a loss...

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither. It is a South African newpaper (see About Us), although Ian Hawkey writes for (or used to write for) the British Sunday Times. It's possible he writes similar articles that appear in both British and South African papers.   Jts1882 | talk  19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's The Sunday Times (South Africa).[1] Nzd (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The paper is The Sunday Times (South Africa), the publisher is Tiso Blackstar Group, and the website is Times Media Live. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Eg. Hawkey, Ian (11 July 2010). "Defending the caveman". The Sunday Times. South Africa: Tiso Blackstar Group. Times Media Live. Retrieved 17 October 2018. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much y'all, correct publisher added to the article :) --Quite A Character (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Times of Zambia (due to the ZA on the website's address)?" - .za is the top-level domain for South Africa. If it was a Zambian site it would be .zm -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

From the article on the tld - "None of the official names for South Africa can be abbreviated to ZA". — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What about "Zuid-Afrika"? Pretty sure that abbreviates to ZA. – PeeJay 11:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently that is no longer one of the Official names of South Africa -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they dropped the language, and the name went with it. This didn't update their tld because the obvious choice .sa had already gone to Saudi Arabia. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Northern Fury

Hey guys, if anyone has some free time, the Northern Fury FC page is in dire need of some updating from their later years (post A-League time in the NPL Queensland), rebranding as North Queensland United in 2018 and subsequent demise (again, sadly [wouldn't be surprised if someone tried it again in a few years]). Would appreciate any assistance on this one! Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Any admins about

fancy giving the Jermaine Pennant page a rest from the attention attracted by his appearance on Jeremy Kyle... Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very long, three days would of been better in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Dele Alli

I removed goal celebrations once, but it got restored! I really don't think it's encyclopaedic, anyone else want to review it? Govvy (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's encyclopaedic enough since it went viral, but I think the section name is incorrect. It could be "Outside football", just like the Thibauting meme on Thibaut Courtois. MYS77 ^✉ 13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

viral, I don't use twitter, I don't use instagram, I hardly use facebook! I am not really into this viral stuff so I wouldn't know. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

His celebration got considerable coverage in the mainstream press (google search). I think that makes it notable. I wouldn't add it myself but can see no reason for it to be removed from a non-football section of his article.   Jts1882 | talk  13:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A less notable one along the same lines to consider perhaps? Kosack (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

heh, I saw that Defoe addition, I really don't see how this information adds any value to the articles, they are very WP:TABLOID, WP:NOTNEWS. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's mentioned then it should be within context unless it becomes a genuine "cultural" thing (like the Klinsmann Dive). But even then its significance as an element of his career should not be overstated. Koncorde (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Emmanuel Adebayor

I am a little confused, I thought he had honours when at Arsenal, but there is nothing in the honours list. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed some honours back in 2015 but not Arsenal ones...feel free to add them if you can find a source supporting them. GiantSnowman 13:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL, GS, you stripped them, I wish you would note these honours on talk pages when you remove them!! Another question, if he got sent off in the final, would he still get a runners up medal? Govvy (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I removed unsourced content about a BLP...what do reliable sources say about him winning a runners up medal? GiantSnowman 13:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It really isn't hard to source those honours you just removed, I really never understand why you don't do that!! Also, I simply asked if a player can receive a medal or not if that player gets sent off in a final, Adebayor got sent off in the 2007 League Cup final. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. GiantSnowman 13:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't, I hate that RtM shitty replies, that's like hitting veteran editors below the belt! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

That guideline gives mixed messages, but the intent is clear.   Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

From WP:BLP - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". GiantSnowman 14:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it contentious to say that, for example, Sergio Aguero won the Premier League last year? Macosal (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A sent-off/substitution does not disqualify the player for a medal. The clubs get enough medals and may distribute them as they wish. -Koppapa (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Past Consensus

(Note: Best to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro for the full story)
Following the likely outcome of delete for the Glauver Aranha Pinheiro AfD, I've come here to ask if fellow editors believe past consensus should be listed somewhere clearly in order to stop the confusion around what articles pass/do not pass NFOOTY.

Glauver Aranha Pinheiro has made one career appearance in a FPL-listed league, which I (and probably others, certainly in the past) assumed meant he was notable under NFOOTY despite the player clearly failing GNG; fully understanding that GNG is classed higher than NFOOTY and FPL is an essay. With that said, articles at AfD with a connection to football are heavily judged on NFOOTY over GNG on most occasions. So, therefore I thought he'd be kept in the AfD. However, User:Jogurney later, helpfully, pointed out to me that there had been a clear past consensus that one-appearance wonders, so to speak, are not accepted when it comes to NFOOTY. That leads to inconsistency, which is another discussion entirely.

My overall point from this is: Surely past consensus should be listed somewhere clear, to avoid further confusion in the future. How is anyone supposed to know, especially new editors, otherwise, as NFOOTY mentions nothing of the above. Me and Jogurney seem to agree, so I thought it was best to bring it here for other voices.
Late addition: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus could be used, though that is underedited and pretty hidden; just found it myself! R96Skinner (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, I've seen pathetic articles kept from one appearance, NFOOTY shouldn't supersede GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your definition of a "pathetic" article? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've seen stub articles kept over partial league appearances, Recently I thought Ben George was a good example of a footballer who lacks general notability, who was kept for one performance. Govvy (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Football in France

Considering they are world champions, this high priority article is very poor (comparing to Football in England, Football in Germany etc for instance). 31.15.225.128 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

premierleague.com

Would you consider it a primary source or not? Govvy (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: I don’t see why not. SportsFan007 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I was just curious, on Spurs season page I put BBC match report url for the report and User:Mediocre Legacy always changes it to premierleague.com page, I always thought BBC would of been the better source, secondary over primary. I was wondering what other people think about that. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason on removing ref unless really redundant. For match report, premierleauge.com, as it was owned by the league, is a primary source. To me, better keep one primary source and one secondary source. It just rude to keep one primary source only. Matthew_hk tc 12:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I was talking about edits like this, 1. So you either have one or the other. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Since permeierleague.com had dead link once a while, if the two match reports are identical (sometimes they did have time offset and different name in goalscorer), then why not BBC (or ESPN or Guardian may be?) Matthew_hk tc 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ip vandal , again (Hungarian)

I lost in my memory on the last Hungarian ip on inventing hoax players to football club. (may be this one? 94.21.34.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at #94.21.34.68 thread? 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC))

But here is his latest ip. it is midnight in my local time BTW.

• 89.147.66.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew_hk tc 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Date of securing qualification for an international tournament

The lists of finalists usually provide the dates when they secured qualification. Is there a way make such info verifiable? The qualifying procedures sometimes involve determining one or more best/worst 2nd/3rd-placed teams across all groups, and sometimes the results against the bottom-placed team (example), or even the two bottom-placed teams (example), are ignored for this purpose. The date of a team's securing the top or a top 2 or top 3 finish in an individual group is more or less straightforward to determine. But the date of mathematically securing qualification is much less so, and requires a review of the possible scenarios in all groups. And even with just a couple of matchdays to go there are still myriads of them. --Theurgist (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If too colmplicatd just follows the sources. -Koppapa (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Renaming "Lansdowne Bhoys FC" page

I was recently doing some work for the U.S. Open Cup Qualifying Rounds and I'm seeing multiple sources call Lansdowne Bhoys FC different names. Some use the original (including U.S. Soccer) while others are calling them Lansdowne Yonkers FC. A quick google search shows that both their league (Cosmopolitan Soccer League) and their own website refer to them by the new name, however U.S. Soccer hasn't seemed to taken notice nor has their page here been updated.

The team's history section says this change was made back in January of this year, so I'm wondering if it should be changed on here too. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

List of UEFA European Championship records

I just wanted to ask, if it's just me or if other people feel this article looks messy in large parts. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I hate these Stat-cruft articles in the first place. This one has next to no prose, and requires culling. I think specifically for these types of articles, we should cull anything that is unsourced. I understand simple maths doesn't need a source, but stating historical statistics without a source is a bad case of WP:OR. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what inconsistency between the tables, colours, and formats! The ELO rankings table have black backgrounds? I agree, messy, needs cleaning - is there already consensuses (consensi?) about how all these different types of stats should be displayed, if they should be displayed at all? --Philk84 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like the collapsable parts at the bottom in Elo Ratings before each European Championship section, it feels all over the place and some editors want to merge more into the article from some current AfDs. I rated it mid importances on the scale, however it feels like a mess, love to strip it down and start again. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There is not connection to ELO at all. I've removed that. -Koppapa (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is absolutely ridiculous, just a chaotic list of (often pointless) stats - "Latest goal from kickoff in final, with no goals scored in between" is an absolute gem. Summaries for every single team that has ever taken part is not the same as a superlative record. It's almost worth completely deleting and starting again!Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland is now Eswatini

The article for the country formerly known as Swaziland has now been moved to eSwatini. Unfortunately, it seems like they're keeping the 'SWZ' FIFA trigramme. I've updated several pages that were using the {{fb* templates, otherwise they'd be displaying the name Eswatini which wouldn't be accurate.

Also, a question about the football biography infobox, what is the policy, do they play for Swaziland up to a certain date and a second row for Eswatini ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

May be wait for WP:RM at Talk:eSwatini#Requested move 24 October 2018? Matthew_hk tc 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a nation being disestablished and then re-founded, they just renamed themselves; there's no need to have separate rows for pre- and post-eSwatini appearances. My first question would be, how does FIFA refer to the nation now? If they call it Swaziland, there's no need to change anything; if they've changed to eSwatini, I would say any player who made their last appearance before the name change should keep using "Swaziland", while anyone who has appeared since they changed their name should use "eSwatini". – PeeJay 13:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with PeeJay2K3. I think FR Yugoslavia was grouped with Serbia and Montenegro, but i don't remember for the case of Serbia and SFR Yugoslavia. For Swaziland , no need to separate listing of the caps. Matthew_hk tc 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia same way just got renamed to Serbia and Montenegro, that is the reason why they are together. As MatthewHK says, we have to wait that last RM and then just move the country name in all football-related articles, but without separating results or absolutelly anything else. FkpCascais (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais:, for the name, the article title and "country" name may be not in sync, so FIFA did make a factor, not only the RM. For example the article title use East Timor, but the team use more formal FIFA style Timor-Leste national football team. Also, Taiwan (aka the original Republic of China), was banned to use China, so it is odd to call Chinese Taipei national football team. Matthew_hk tc 14:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: FIFA, CAF and the IOC refer to it as Eswatini. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

That answers my question then! Swaziland for everyone who played before the name change (the official name change, not the date FIFA changed its database), and eSwatini for everyone after. – PeeJay 14:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheBigJagielka: Stick to Eswatini national football team at the moment. The big E and small e problem, just wait for the WP:RM in the main article Eswatini to settle. Matthew_hk tc 14:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Once Eswatini/eSwatini is decided, all articles/templates/categories under Category:Football in Swaziland should also be moved. I've seen CAF use "ESW" as the country code, however it is unlikely that FIFA's trigramme has been changed. Template:Country data Swaziland is also likely to be moved soon, therefore all articles which use {{fb}}, {{fbw}}, etc. or a flag template need to be adjusted if referring to the country on 18 April 2018 or prior, i.e. {{fb|SWZ|name=Swaziland}} to display Swaziland. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

All-time Atlanta United FC roster

Could someone more skilled with "roster" pages take a look at this page? I saw it on WP:NPP, but it doesn't seem well contained, or meet the MOS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Should be re-named to List of Atlanta United FC players in-line with standard naming conventions (I'm aware all the 'soccer' pages use the 'roster' format, no idea why they have to be different), converted into table format with basic stats (dates and games only) and sourced. GiantSnowman 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Galácticos

Despite being a really highly sourced article, it waffles a lot into WP:OR, specifically regarding what teams are classed as "Galacticos", (Like, seriously, Kashiwa Reysol were Galacticos? And, also the information on why the Real Madrid team was deemed to have failed is not sourced. It's such a big article, it probably needs cleanup Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, part of it seems to be a mirror of History of Real Madrid. Spike 'em (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed the complete list. I mean the only two having a ref with the name galacticos were the idonesian team, well..., and the New York Cosmos. But that one was a blog with no other google hits. SO not worth keeping too. And the season to season section should be shortened as well. Random wins noted there ect. Make it a single section and mention their biggest accompishments, like winning the Champions League three times in a row. -Koppapa (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed Hamdy - date of birth

Could someone familiar with Egyptian football confirm if the Mohamed Hamdy at Soccerway[2] (born 1995) is the same person as the player of the same name at Mohamed Hamdy Sharaf (born 1993). Someone has created a draft for a player of this name with the birth year 1995 and I'm a bit confused. Hack (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

They appear to be the same player. I'll reject the draft draft has not yet been submitted, not sure if it falls under a speedy. SportingFlyer talk 14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash

Is there anyone in the Leicester area that is able to take photographs of the flowers and other tributes laid in the wake of the 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash. An image would be useful in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

MLS clarification.

Just wondering, is it more important for us to have the MLS tables shown as W-L-T, to maintain some form of consistency between American sporting articles, or is it more important to have them align with every other country football articles and show W-D-L. Also, is it specifically more important to have the word "Tied" used over "Drawn"?

If it's more important for us to have them Americanised, could someone explain to me why it's the case? It's always just been something I've noticed and been unsure about bringing to a talk page to potentially change. - J man708 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

America related article use American English and grammar. Except the standardization of article title to other similar article in the rest of the world (thread #All-time Atlanta United FC roster), it seem fine to have their own variant. Even they use their own style in the squad list (such as New York Red Bulls#Current roster) Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

But is that the correct way we should go about it, rather than having it conform to more of the template currently used by the rest of the world? - J man708 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert in grammar variant. So not sure American use draw or tie actually, but the external source also used W-L-T format. Matthew hk (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally can't stand how the MLS puts draws after the loss column. It's particularly confusing to someone who consumes the MLS article from outside the U.S., and it's also not something other U.S. websites necessarily copy as far as I know (checked Soccerway, RSSSF, ESPN/Soccernet, TSN, CBC which all use the internationally recognised way. Sports Illustrated uses the way used on the official MLS website.) I'd be in favor of using W-D-L, as per usual. SportingFlyer talk 06:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone else give some feedback on this? Is there grounds for trying to change the MLS tables to conform to the other football tables? - J man708 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think there are grounds to change it, but even though I can't find the RfC/consensus I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, and the decision rationalised. It is pretty stupid the way it stands. SportingFlyer talk 13:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I supposed there are two opposing arguments and perhaps the decision should be based on who is the main audience for the pages. From a global football perspective, it would be better to use the same format across all football articles. From an American sports perspective, it would be better to use the same format as other American sports (the current state). The question is who is looking at the articles most, soccer fans trying to find out about another soccer league or American sports fans trying to find out about another sport in their city or country. Unless we can find statistics on this question, I think it will be hard to find consensus for change.   Jts1882 | talk  14:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Considering Canadian and a decent number if not a majority of U.S. news websites show MLS tables in the worldwide version, it's not as if there's a strong "American sports" bias here... I'm not sure why MLS chooses to have their "official table" be outside the norm, though. SportingFlyer talk 14:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer the W-D-L for uniformity. The W-L-T format for American sports is a because American sports generally have no draws or rarely (an NFL "draw" rarely ends in a tie after overtime). US soccer also went this route until recently so have this legacy. As they now allow draws the W-D-L format makes more sense. My main point is I think it might be hard to find a consensus for change, given the articles currently follow American sports style and the league in question follows the W-L-T format.   Jts1882 | talk  14:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try, though. SportingFlyer talk 20:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, is there a way to mass invite those user that edited the 2018 Major League Soccer season article? May be someone good in wording (definitely not my English writing level) to post some notice on that talk page, and may be in user talk too? Matthew hk (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if someone proposes an RfC, those people can easily invited to participate if done properly per WP:CANVASS. SportingFlyer talk 23:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Darren Kelly

Would anyone mind taking a look at Darren Kelly, which I suspect the subject of the article has been editing to add unsourced statistics, removing clubs he played and adding some content that is probably not notable. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 14:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Fábio Lopes

Three footballers at this disambig, all with 3 different ways of disambiguating. I'd suggest we go for year of birth? GiantSnowman 14:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Fábio Lopes (footballer, born 1985) should probably just use the full name, Fábio Rogério Correa Lopes.   Jts1882 | talk  15:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Birth year always seems best to me, keeps it consistent. R96Skinner (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Full name disambiguation is often useless with Brazilian footballers. It's best to go with their most common name and birth year. Hack (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Hoddle birth year

I've been doing some work on Hoddle's article, collection sources etc. His birth year, Soccerbase has 1957, Telegraph has 1958, I would consider Telegraph more reliable, just wanted to check with other people for sources and which is better to go with. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Every source I've read recently said he's 61, so born in 1957. GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

hmm, okay, Telegraph is normally very reliable. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a basic profile, it could easily be a typo - and reliable sources are not infallible. Compare with The Independent, BBC etc. etc. GiantSnowman 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoddle was presented with a 61st birthday cake by Robbie Savage on Saturday, before his collapse [3]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

yep, I've emailed Telegraph they have a mistake on their factfile, see if they fix it, shame what happened to Hoddle, I wish him well. Govvy (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bob Goodwin's book gives "Born: Hayes, Middlesex, 27 October 1957".   Jts1882 | talk  21:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia is not meant for the "truth", but reporting the most popular version on external WP:reliable source, or sometimes, multiple version if the alternative version had other evidence, that was list out by that reliable source. (and dam, i can't find the specific essay/MoS/guide that was linked by others in ANI, but only Wikipedia:Five pillars).

And in this case, it seem just a typo in Telegraph. Matthew hk (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. Consider a move to WikiProject Association football if the current name is considered ambiguous. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football → Wikipedia:WikiProject Soccer – the sport is soccer, not football. SportsFan007 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Oppose. FIFA just call it football and most of the population of the world know association football is football not soccer. Matthew hk (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The latter part of the rationale that "the sport is soccer, not football" is patently false. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a ridiculous waste of time. SportingFlyer talk 02:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk, Mattythewhite, and SportingFlyer: NFL is football, FIFA is soccer. and it is NOT "patently false", and it is extremely rude to call is ridiculous. SportsFan007 (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Oppose Football is the more commonly used term. I'm inclined to agree with SportingFlyer's point above. Kosack (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish it was called soccer all over the world. It would prevent all the double takes I experience because I was brought up with it being called soccer where I live, and it's never going going to be called football by most people here. But I know it's called football in most English speaking countries. There's a handful of exceptions, which you can see by noting where you are taken by Football in Ireland, Football in Australia, Football in Canada and Football in America (and possibly others). It would seem that our OP is influenced by the latter two (or perhaps only the last one). US-centrism is an ongoing problem for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and move to SNOW close. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose So stupid. It is FIFA, the majority of the countries that play the game call it Football and this all just seems like a pissing contest from the nominee. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate to blame this on ignorance, rather than stupidity. (They aren't the same thing.) And the good thing is, ignorance can be cured. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Compromise is it possible to create a separate WikiProject page for people who prefer to call it soccer? SportsFan007 (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

No Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

you can't just say no without giving a reason. SportsFan007 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I actually agree with that. Several replies here have been a little too terse and arrogant, possibly showing a similar level of ignorance to that you seemed to display when you made this request. I simply don't believe it's needed. The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Soccer does obviously exist, and brings you here, so my answer would be that a separate page simply isn't needed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that as well, including possibly myself - but at the same time, there's a distinct lack of patience I have about this from someone who has made a number of edits to the encyclopedia, whose moves out of nowhere (including deleting redirects) are bordering on vandalism, if they haven't already crossed that line. SportingFlyer talk 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The redirect from soccer project was created in 2007; only the talk page redirect was deleted recently to make way for move. Matthew hk (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @SportsFan007: I'm sorry about my terseness. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is an international project, and in much of the world association football is the sport that people think of when you say "football". There may be an interesting argument to be made about a move perhaps to "WikiProject Association football" (thereby aligning it with the mainspace article), but indeed, this is why a lot of editors quickly disagreed with your proposal. Your compromise solution is unsatisfactory because a parallel project would, for all intents and purposes, be the same project with a different name. If you are interested in starting a sub-group specifically for major league soccer in the United States, maybe we could do that? Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Mz7, I wouldn't be opposed to that idea or a soccer in the united states sub-group. SportsFan007 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Hmm, I took a look around, and I found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force. So it looks like this kind of subgroup already exists in some form. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Creating different names for the same projects would only be confusing. On your logic I'd prefer to use Wikiproject Gridiron, for instance... SportingFlyer talk 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @SportsFan007: WP:MR is the only allowable forum to challenge the closure of an RM. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @SportsFan007: you can't just remove the redirect and turn the page to your one man army wikiproject. Matthew hk (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Where do I go to request a sepearate wikiproject page? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Comment I take some responsibility for suggesting this RM proposal (after reverting an out-of-process move of the talk page), and there may be an argument for moving this to WikiProject Association Football, but the existing proposal will never pass, and should be withdrawn. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close waste of time. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close - as an American user, this was a patently worthless nom. Just because the sport is known as soccer in the United States does not mean that it is known that way around the world (hint: it isn't). We already have a task force dedicated to American and Canadian soccer (which was already mentioned above by Mz7), and we already have a desperate need to reduce the Americentrism that falls across large parts of Wikipedia. An argument can be made to move the page to "WikiProject Association Football", but I won't be the user to make it. I hold that the status quo works perfectly fine: WikiProject Football for association football, WikiProject American Football for the gridiron sport that is almost solely played in the United States. We don't need a separate wikiproject, we don't need a renamed page; the current setup is perfectly fine. Also, initially moving the page without any discussion is a terrible look – this is certainly not the place to be WP:BOLD, under any circumstances. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close Football is the most WP:COMMONNAME globally the most popular sport in every country in Africa ,South and central America,Europe and also Asia as the whole.the term Football almost exclusively refers to Association Football except USA to a lesser extent to Canada and Australia.Even CNN use the term Football to describe the game and most International versions of all news channels use Football . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't need to mention popularity, and may be off the mark just a little with Asia. Cricket definitely outranks football in popularity in India, amd there's a lot of people there. But I broadly agree with your conclusion re the name of the game and this article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The term Football is extensively and exclusively used in Asia for Association Football and Asia as a whole in 48 countries in over 42 countries ,Football is the most popular .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Out of curiosity, what do you you all mean by “SNOW close”? SportsFan007 (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

A look at WP:SNOW will answer that question. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Thank you so much!!!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• SNOW close - I debated doing this myself but since NAC closures, even by page movers, are controversial in the first place I decided a SNOW close would be over the line. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close – @SportsFan007:, I recommend reading the intro to our article on Football. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used around the world, not just in the United States, so we take a global perspective on word choice. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Good gosh no! We are not slanging it up here just to appease the yanks, there is a world outside the USA you know! The rest of the world call it football for that is it's name and thus so should the project reflect that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have been forced to open this new section....

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.

---

...to point out a falsehood in the final comment. The "rest of the world" does NOT call it football! I am not American, and I call it soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes and already stated by Pharaoh of the Wizards. But SBS of Australia also commonly use football during their free broadcasting of UCL and Premier League. As well as a MoS stated Australia-related articles should use football (soccer). Matthew hk (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's naming convention says to use soccer to refer to Association football in Australia-related articles. --SuperJew (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Because Australia has about four different major football codes. I've used football and soccer interchangeably, depending on the audience. SportingFlyer talk 09:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, FIFA says football is football unless you are Australian and American where soccer is soccer Hhkohh (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Not *this* debate per se, but this has been done to death (and beyond) many times. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who you are accusing of holding a stick. All I did was correct a false claim. Why the rest of the above comments exist I have no idea. Soccer fans do seem to get very excited at times. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, but I call it football... Can you provide FIFA source about calling soccer? Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What a silly request. All I pointed out was, contrary to a claim made by another editor that the rest of the world (outside the USA) call it football, I, a non-American, call it soccer. I have a perfectly good reason to do so. I can't be bothered explaining it here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, so are you non-Australian? Hhkohh (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I am Australian. WTF is going on in this thread? There seems to be massive confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, Australia has Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force, I think we should move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soccer/Australia task force, thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Move what? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soccer/Australia task force. Hhkohh (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's never bothered me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No @Hhkohh: that's a silly suggestion, and this entire thread is very silly. GiantSnowman 10:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know why it became a thread. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2018 (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.

F.C. or FC ?

Currently there is inconsistency in naming football clubs. For example, check Category:Football clubs in India. For Football Club, some articles use acronym with dots, while others use it in plain form.--Let There Be Sunshine 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that most clubs have the dots (four times as many that don't), so perhaps the ones that don't should be moved for consistency. Number 57 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See the talk page at A.F.C. Bournemouth for a recent discussion. SportingFlyer talk 02:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate of "dot" never end. Also, some WP:RM was slipped from discussion , such as Beşiktaş JK was moved by speedy route, claiming official source did not had dot. Also the inconsistency was also observed in Portuguese club article. Matthew hk (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the Beşiktaş move. That should not have been moved that way, so I've undone it. Number 57 16:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Should teams that move up to MLS have a new article created?

Hi all, there is a discussion happening at Talk:FC Cincinnati#Splitting article? that potentially has broader impact on other American soccer teams' articles. FC Cincinnati is moving up from United Soccer League (USL) to Major League Soccer (MLS) beginning with the 2019 season. The discussion is about whether the USL team and the MLS team should be covered in one comprehensive article, or in two separate articles. More community input and perspectives would be appreciated to help the discussion move along. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is one we'll probably have to put on the back burner until after the team starts its MLS tenure. If official sources consider the MLS franchise to be a continuation of the team that was playing in the USL, so should we. – PeeJay 12:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see how this is any different from any other team changing leagues... The only reason to split, would be if the team was considered a completely seperate entity, and didn't recognise it's own accomplishments... Or, if another team played as FC Cincinnati in the USL. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have one article. Even if legally the MLS team is a new 'company', it's realistically the same organisation. It seems ridiculous that we have three articles on Seattle Sounders and four (!) on Portland Timbers in their various incarnations, whereas the various (at least four) incarnations of Parma are covered by a single article. Number 57 21:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, a new page should be created only if the team gets relocated and/or rebranded. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@Number 57: I completely agree (if you wouldn't mind, I'd really appreciate if you weighed in over on that discussion). The old NASL (1968-84) teams should probably have separate articles, because there's truly no continuity from those teams to the modern day teams (there wasn't really any top-level pro soccer in the US for a decade or so after the NASL fell). But for the modern teams that moved up from lower division to MLS, it doesn't make any sense. I'd imagine that's how we ended up in this situation -- editors saw that it was warranted to create new articles for reborn NASL teams, so they just started creating new articles all the time. --IagoQnsi (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the case at all - there's over a decade of precedent that the new MLS teams are different from the old USL teams, both in legal form and on the field, even if time has sort of blurred the distinction. SportingFlyer talk 22:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• We should create a new article. Are we going to go back and merge all of the other articles together if this passes? It's pretty clear these are different teams than the minor league teams that have come before them, as MLS grants an expansion franchise, going all the way back to 2008 where the Sounders didn't even give their fans the option to vote for Sounders (it won the write-in contest) and the Whitecaps didn't announce they were the Whitecaps for at least a couple months after their announcement. Even the official MLS announcement for Cincinnati said the "expansion team, which will be called FC Cincinnati," as opposed to the team getting "promoted." I would strongly oppose a merge of the Timbers articles, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 22:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

See also:

• Talk:Minnesota_United_FC#Merger_with_Minnesota_United_FC_(2010–16)
• Talk:Orlando_City_SC#Merge_with_Orlando_City_SC_(2010–14)
• Talk:Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC/Archive_1#New_-_Page_Merge_Proposal

Looks like the other clubs which have moved up have never even considered a merge, but there is also Talk:Montreal_Impact_(1992–2011)#Proposed_article_moves. SportingFlyer talk 23:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should go back and merge all the other articles. There is no benefit whatsoever to having so many separate articles on the same club beyond satisfying some pedantic views on legal entities. Number 57 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and it's not pedantic - these are separate teams which have adopted previous brands. Furthermore the leap from the minor leagues to MLS is huge. These teams were not "promoted." SportingFlyer talk 23:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It seem based on regional user practice. It would be snowball close for proposing the split of Rangers F.C. due to the famous bankruptcy. While the US team and their editors, preferred to break down into small articles. The break down into smaller articles also observed in companies that had name change, people create articles for the same company that had name change and "major" merge. Matthew hk (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My Apologies

I’m sorry I started that whole Soccer vs. Football thing, it was poor judgement on my part. SportsFan007 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

You didn't start it, but I give you credit for the apology. I find the topic to be particularly polarising (polarizing?) as people get very precious about their "own" word instead of just enjoying the game. I can give you numerous examples of the word "soccer" being used in the UK across several decades (not as popular as the word "football" but still significant) but some people don't want to hear it because it interferes with their anti-American narrative, while many North Americans (and others) are just as precious about their own code of football being called "football". --Jameboy (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Soccer is a British term, like rugger for rugby. All (or nearly all) countries use football for their dominant football code. As a result, in most of the world football refers to association footall. The exceptions are in North America, Australia, and possibly Ireland, where other codes are more popular. Then soccer is used to distinguish the association code from the majority sport. It is very rare that this is a problem as people talk about the sport in context.

The English Wikipedia is the most global. Most people will expect football to refer to soccer. When it comes to the projects and the people most involved it is even more obvious. Those looking for American football will quickly realise that this football project is not the one they are looking for. To assume that they would be confused is to assume they are stupid, which I don't think they are. If setting up the project from scratch, project association football would have been less ambiguous, but is anyone really confused about the system that has been in place for many years?   Jts1882 | talk  20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

All that is written above is correct, except for one thing. Confusion does arise, repeatedly, but it is momentary on each occasion. This caused by ambiguity, not stupidity. The most annoying part of it for me is those who aren't aware of or insist there is no ambiguity. (It's then that I start to wonder about stupidity.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No idea why @Hhkohh: thought to raise ANI issue when SportsFan007 apologised here and at my talk page? Everybody drop it and move in. GiantSnowman 08:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This user post apologies when I type ANI. So after I post ANI, I saw apologizing Hhkohh (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland is now Eswatini (2)

Too bad the bot had archive the thread.

So, the WP:RM at main article had been closed (stick to Eswatini). Hope people don't go to Move Review. Thus those need to be moved under this project

• Football in Swaziland and subcat (speedy C2D?)
  • Swaziland national football team (speedy C2D?)

However, i am not sure did they discussed the demonym form, thus leave those as it:

• Swazi football logos
• Swazi footballers

Matthew hk (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and started changing a few of these since I think consensus is clear, but I'm not sure if you move all of the articles in the category when you move the category, so it may have to be undone. SportingFlyer talk 06:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories should be listed at WP:CFDS. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If large in number may be Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy is better (they use bot). Small in number and bold, may be the move button and then AWB? Matthew hk (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I've messed this up then. I apologise. First time moving categories. Shall I undo the moves and then CFDS? SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

as Eswatini national football team was a small cat and it was documented here, it seem fine, but the rest may be better use CFDS. Matthew hk (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sports table color proposal (AFC)

• Most previous related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_92#Colouring_system_for_tables_and_national_end-of-season_playoff_positions

• As pre-discussion in Template talk:2018–19 A-League table, per Champions League/Copa Libertadores Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season. So I think preliminary round 2 in Template:2018–19 A-League table uses green2 is very strange because if both one team entered play-off round and one team entered preliminary round 2 all uses green2, it will confuse readers and preliminary round 2 is earlier than play-off round. So I proposed group stage should be green1, play-off round should be green2, preliminary round 2 should be green3 and preliminary round 1 should be green4. Due to some reasons, this discussion is only limited to AFC leagues. Thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell the difference between the two shades, seems the same to me. Govvy (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I can tell the difference when green1 row is next to green2, but in the current case in {{2018–19 A-League table}}, the rows in the order green1, yellow1, green2, i can't tell the difference. Matthew_hk tc 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearing it up (I may've mis-interpreted you Hhkohh), but if the A-League had a team which qualified for the Preliminary Round 2 and Preliminary Round 1, they wouldn't both have Green2. The worse stage qualifier would use Green3. - J man708 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No oppose here, so I switched Hhkohh (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: I think the problem with green4 (and also blue4) is that they have a very weak shade, and does not look good as a stand-alone color. I think easier would just be: green1 for ACL GS, green2 for ACL PO, green3 for ACL PR2 and PR1 (technically an association cannot have one team in PR2 and one team in PR1), blue1 for AFC GS, blue2 for AFC PO and PR (since AFC Cup has maximum of two teams for each association, there is no need for more than two colors), and yellow1 for regional club tournaments. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Chanheigeorge, okay I just checked color in module. Color 4 is similar to white so ACL PR2 and PR1 (also in the same stage) should use green3. But AFC Cup PR use blue2 or blue3 is both okay to me. Hhkohh (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just note that sometimes we can see a team entered PR2 and other team entered PO in the same league Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: Yes, eg now Iran has two teams in PR2, but the better-ranked team may get promoted to PO depending on number of entries in West. So we use green3 for PR2, and if a team gets promoted, we switch the team's colors to green2 for PO. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Chanheigeorge, Also, if AFC Club ranking said Australia is in top 3 in East Region, 4th ranked league in east region will happen this matter Hhkohh (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Chanheigeorge, for yellow color, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season#Standing Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: I suppose tournaments like Arab Club or Mekong Championship would be "Tertiary continental tournament", so they should use yellow. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

New template

Now, I have absolutely no technical ability so to make a template for presidents of PSG I borrowed the code from the managers template and changed the title. However, it still says "Paris Saint-Germain F.C. managers". Is anyone smart enough to sort this out? Thanks in advance. Harambe Walks (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you used {{Football manager history}} which automatically use managers as suffix. the parameter |name= only specify the template title (similar to the WP:article title). Matthew hk (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew hk Harambe Walks (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C.

I did a load of edits to the page to slim line a bit as it's near exactly the same history as on History of Portsmouth F.C. Trying to bring it in line with our MoS, applying WP:Overlink rules, filling in bares refs. But this IP just keeps reverting what I do now. Some help please... Govvy (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit, and left them some comments about WP:OWN, WP:NPOV etc. Spike 'em (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay cheers, originally the article was all bare citations, I rather like filling those in!! Govvy (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, if IP continue undoing edits, just go to WP:ANI Hhkohh (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Erm, ANI is for serious incidents, not for little incidents like this one. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to trim down/un-fan this article for ages now, but there's an IP in the Portsmouth area who always restores his edits. I've suggested WP:TNT as there's a separate article for history Harambe Walks (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Soccerbase.com

Is it me or is soccerbase becoming less reliable? Govvy (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It is becoming less reliable.--EchetusXe 11:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Both, it is you and Soccerbase is becoming less reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

:/ I should kick The Rambling Man in the shin for that reply!. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 Premier League screenshot error

Please have a look at the screenshot, I just wanted to point out that for laptop screens, that capacity information is completely unreadable and stadiums in the list is covered also. I have no idea how to fix it. Maybe someone can fix it. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Which browser? And do you know what your Browser/Screen size are? What's My Browser should tell you. I resized my (Chrome) browser window and the map was pushed above the table without overlap --Philk84 16:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Same here in Firefox, the map was pushed above the table. The CSS float right behaviour of the map shouldn't result in overlap. Without knowing why it is occurring, any "fixes" will be dependent on the computer of the editor. Is it a Mac with Safari?   Jts1882 | talk  16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am using mac, safari, Govvy (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Using Firefox, all good for me. Kante4 (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have same effect on Chrome on Mac. I could get it to do similar on a Windows PC using Chrome earlier by resizing the browser window (though there was only a small range of browser sizes that made it happen). Current laptop screen is 1280 pixels, I wasn't aware of how to check the browser size earlier whilst on PC. Spike 'em (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

At browser width 1131, the table is quite thin and fits alongside the map. At 1132, and above, the table widens and the map overlaps it. Narrowing again, down to 1097 and below, the table widens and sits below the UK map and next to the London one. Spike 'em (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Using Chrome on a Windows 10 laptop I get the same : between browser width of 1132 and 1331, the map overlaps the table (the amount of overlap decreases as window gets wider). Using Edge on the same PC, the overlap doesn't happen: the table is rendered in a different area of the browser window. Spike 'em (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me on Chrome v70 on Windows 10. But I've had issues like this on other tables on Wiki before, they usually fix themselves in the next version of Chrome. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I get the same in Chrome. As I narrow the window there is a width where I get overlap and then it moves when the window goes narrower.

It appears that the problem is due to interaction of the infobox, the two maps and the table. I've moved the maps to the "Stadiums and locations" subsection and put a

before this section so it appears below the infobox. This fixes (or at least is a workaround for) the problem in Chrome for me. How about Mac/Safari?   Jts1882 | talk  09:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me (on chrome), will have a look on Mac later. I was going to try moving / adding some text to move the table clear of the infobox; I'd not seen {{clear}} before. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case it would be convenient to widen the infobox, say to 400px. There is a lot of information in the infobox compared to the top text sections and the first column is rather narrow. Unfortunately this particular template doesn't use bodystyle or labelstyle and doesn't have an image (another way to widen infoboxes).   Jts1882 | talk  10:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's better, it's fixed on my browser now from the changes. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Serbia vs. Albania

Does anyone know if caps were still officially awarded for the abandoned Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) match in 2014. The RSSSF and NFT do not seem to state that FIFA have not counted the match in players' totals. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

w/o may be not counted as caps. However, as wikipedia is merely a tool to reporting the caps from reliable secondary source, if those source count w/o as caps, then use that version in the secondary source, instead of "official version". I even digged out a FIFA open letter to country FAs, saying friendly with more than 6 substitute will be doomed from international A match to training, the latter is not counting for ranking. But certainly if this dooming was existed, reliable source may or may not count it (more likely count it in my personal opinion ). Matthew hk (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that we don't count non-FIFA matches for players' totals. Or have I got that wrong? Kosack (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes we don't count non-FIFA match, but it is a grey area for match that never complete (or in my second example, a scheduled, will be recognized FIFA-match turn not recognize by FIFA due to too many substitution), and in this case, the match was scrapped entirely and the result was awarded. Matthew hk (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Matchday squads

Parklands cobbler (talk · contribs) is again adding full matchday squads for each game during the season (here). After removing them, he told me to "plz go away" and readded them. Those should not be included or? That's just too much. Kante4 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Ive been doing this for a long time mainly with my own team, and its something which clearly adds to the page, its not vandalism. Its alot of work, just let me get on with it without deleting it. Kthanksbye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parklands cobbler (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

First, sign your posts. Second, that's a big WP:NOTSTATS issue there. Full squads don't need to be listed except for important matches (e.g. cup finals, world cup groups, etc.) Jay eyem (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Another vote for NOTSTATS here. Spike 'em (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's WP:NOTSTATS as it's a table and there's not a statistic in sight. It does appear to be compiled in a form that is WP:OR, though. SportingFlyer talk 00:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Def looks like stats, and I don't see how it adds to the page. The format is very hard to read --SuperJew (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Aside from being somewhat excessive, the entire article is unreferenced and the table may confuse readers by listing players as numbers 1-11 even though in this season the team were wearing individual squad numbers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed as WP:NOSTATS. The match report url link is for people to see more information such as lineup, but no need to insert lineup in the wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't need full squads for every single match of a league season, I back its removal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'll get rid of the numbers at the top but keep doing it, thats the info I'll take from this chat. thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parklands cobbler (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just wrong. There is not a single editor in favour of those matchday squads, for different reasons. Kante4 (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with SportingFlyer that it doesn't violate WP:NOSTATS, which covers Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. The statistics are in context and placed in a table as suggested accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability.

Whether the article needs all the information is another question. But not being necessary is not the same as grounds for removal.   Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I note that Parklands cobbler (talk · contribs) has reinstated the table, but has now assigned positions instead of numbers. This seems to be stating that Northampton played 4-4-2 in every single game. This may or may not be true, but there is still not a single source for anything in this article. I suggest that the first thing the editor should concentrate on is sorting this out. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is absolutely pedantic, but it can't be WP:NOTSTATS because the information isn't quantitative or numerical. I think we're perhaps thinking of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I think there's now a general consensus to remove the table, though. SportingFlyer talk 09:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do. And adding it back is editing against consensus. Kante4 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Parklands cobbler: there is clear consensus here that such tables should not be included. I have therefore removed it again. If you re-add it you will be blocked for disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 10:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a vendetta by Kante4 who is as has been mentioned is being really pedantic. Ilikeeatingwaffles has stated to sort the problem out which I will endevour to work out. Jts1882 & SportingFlyer don't agree with removal on WP:NOT STATS etc as they are quite clearly stats. So I really don't see a problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parklands cobbler (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Again - there is consensus for removal. Do not re-add it. GiantSnowman 10:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'm on board with removing this info. It's really not necessary. If you want to compile shit like that, set up your own website. – PeeJay 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What a horrible table, had to put my glasses on to read that, it probably violates WP:ACCESS also. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hah, I was the one being pedantic, and I think it should be removed as well! SportingFlyer talk 10:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

National team ranking templates

I've created {{FIFA World Rankings}}, {{World Football Elo Ratings}} and {{FIFA Women's World Rankings}} to help facilitate the update of national team rankings. This should allow for all the rankings to be updated in a matter of minutes instead of changing individual articles, also ensuring pages don't become outdated. Additionally, all the rankings are now properly sourced. I've added documentation that should explain the templates well, let me know if anything is unclear. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Good job. Kante4 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me copy it for the FIBA World Rankings. Asturkian (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This is amazing S.A. Julio! :) One problem I can forsee is IP editors wanting to update their own country's ranking right away, not understanding the format, and changing it on the country's page. I wonder what would be the best way to minimize that... --SuperJew (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Good question – there is a similar issue for {{English football updater}} towards the end of the season. Number 57 17:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Is there a page/script that monitors how many pages a template is used on? Perhaps something like that can be used to detect when people remove it? Probably this will be easier than making sure there's someone actively watching every national team page.. --Philk84 16:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The "what links here" tool should allow to see where the template is transcluded in the mainspace, I'll check the count once new rankings are released to see if any articles have had the template removed. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered do this with a Lua module. Once over the initial learning curve the code is far easier to follow than the template language. It would also be easy to have one module with different data pages for the different rankings.   Jts1882 | talk  15:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Lua, though I'll consider using a module in the future. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings as of 4 April 2024.

Rank	Change	Team	Points
1		Argentina	1858
2		France	1840.59
3	1	Belgium	1795.23
4	1	England	1794.9
5		Brazil	1788.65

The Lua modules make life much easier when dealing with complex modules and provide flexibily for extension. I find the Lua code far more easy to read. When the template doesn't change often there isn't so much advantage. As an exercise I've drafted a generic module for sports rankings: (Module:SportsRankings). The idea is that different rankings just need a separate data subpage, which then are implemented with the same code. For demonstration purposes I've put top ten data in data pages for FIFA and ELO rankings: Module:SportsRankings/data/FIFA World Rankings and Module:SportsRankings/data/World Football Elo Ratings. I've created sandbox versions of the calling templates: {{FIFA World Rankings/sandbox}} and {{World Football Elo Ratings/sandbox}}. For other data pages it should work automatically if the name of the ranking called by the template matches the module data subpage. If there is any interest, this can be developed further to allow different outputs and include additional information.   Jts1882 | talk  15:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

FIBA World Rankings as of 1 March 2024.

Rank	Change	Team	Points
7	1	Canada	746.2
8	1	Argentina	743.2
9		France	737.1
10		Lithuania	713.1

Hi, as I told you I did the same for the {{FIBA World Rankings}} of basketball. Asturkian (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a fully functional version of the module for the sports rankings, using the sandbox templates mentioned above. I've added an alias for the FIFA codes to make updates easier. As the data is in place, I've also created a template for making tables from the rankings ({{Sports rankings table}}). This means the table in the FIFA World Rankings article page and the individual rankings in infoboxes can all be updated in one place. I've updated the FIBA ranking as well.   Jts1882 | talk  17:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see how to include it. But where is it edited? Or is it autogenerated from sources? -Koppapa (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koppapa: At Template:FIFA World Rankings/data. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koppapa: The data for the module is held in a series of subpages. The current pages are listed at Module:SportsRankings/data. These have to be updated by an editor when new rankings are released. The Excel formula to generate the correct format is in the data subpage. The FIFA World Ranking data is at Module:SportsRankings/data/FIFA World Rankings.   Jts1882 | talk  08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

UEFA Coefficient Rankings as of 23 October 2018.

Rank	Change	Team	Points
41	2	Lithuania	6.75
42	2	Latvia	5.625
43	5	Luxembourg	5.25
44	2	Armenia	5.25
45	2	Malta	5.125

I don't suppose anyone has/plans to have a similar template for the UEFA Coefficient ranking? That way, for example, the table on Football in Luxembourg for FIFA (new template) and UEFA (old table) rankings would look similar.. --Philk84 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Philk84: The idea behind the module is that all you need to do is create a UEFA Coefficient ranking data subpage in the appropriate format and call the module function with the subpage name. So the function call {{#invoke|SportsRankings|DATA_SUBPAGE|list}} would use data in Module:SportsRankings/data/DATA_SUBPAGE, with the data subpage set to UEFA Coefficient Rankings. The current functions handle all the rankings the same way, but the advantage of a module is that customisation of different rankings is possible.   Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've created data subpage Module:SportsRankings/data/UEFA Coefficient Rankings and entered the data for the five countries in the Football in Luxembourg page. I haven't added the previous points column, but can do if that is considered important.   Jts1882 | talk  09:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks @Jts1882: - but Latvia are actually down two places compared to the last ranking. I guess all that's needed then is to just pull the information from UEFA and plug it into the data page? I don't think the previous points is needed, it's not shown in the new FIFA ranking table, and if anyone is that desperate to find it out they have the source link directly there.

UEFA Coefficient Rankings as of 23 October 2018.

Rank	Change	Team	Points
42	2	Latvia	5.625
43	5	Luxembourg	5.25
44	2	Armenia	5.25

On a side note, do you think it's possible to just provide "LUX" instead of 82|86 or 41|45 for these kinds of templates? That way, it doesn't need to be updated again as it could automatically show LUX and the two nations above/below? --Philk84 09:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The table is created directly using invoke in the div just above your comment. It uses the full country name for now, I'll add the code option. I need to think about how to handle the templates, one with all the options (and named parameters) or several with simple options.   Jts1882 | talk  10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jts1882: - I've got both tables now on the Football in Luxembourg page using this new template with the 2 countries above/below. I'll see if I can get the other UEFA Coefficients entered in the data page later today.. --Philk84 10:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi, FIBA rankings still links to the football teams instead of their basketball (or "men's basketball" ones). Asturkian (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Links fixed for basketball and women's football teams   Jts1882 | talk  13:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Allan Morrison

Going through the "unreferenced" articles for the WikiProject, I noticed Allan Morrison. Is he notable under WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I would check to see if he actually played for Carlisle (and source it if he did), and if not send it to AfD. Would do it now but am just doing a casual watchlist check. SportingFlyer talk 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

He played for Clyde when they were in the Scottish second tier. (Then, 'Scottish Division One'; currently, the 'Scottish Championship'). Eagleash (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

They were close to promotion to the SPL that season, as indicated in 2003–04_in_Scottish_football. The achievements section of the Clyde_F.C. might need fixing as it as them as runners-up in Scottish Division Two or successors (tier 3) that season. Someone more familiar with the Scottish football division name change might like to check.   Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the NoTW Football Annual 2004–2005 p.108 they finished 2nd in the 'Bell's' First Division (2nd tier) in 2003–04. The Scottish Football League Division Two was, I believe, the original name for the second tier from the 1890s till 1975. Hence the reference to Div 2 and successors in the Clyde stats. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In the Clyde article, the wikilink to Scottish Division Two takes it to a division that was the third tier from 1975 and 2013. I think that means the runners-up for 2004-05 is in the wrong tier.   Jts1882 | talk  13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a poorly thought out redirect, although at the time it was created it was probably correct. Scottish Division Two currently redirects to Scottish Football League Second Division (tier 3): the original Scottish Football League Division Two does not appear to have its own article and redirects to Scottish Football League. The article for the league for the year in question would be Scottish Football League First Division but that only applies from 1975 to 2013 so would be inaccurate as a heading in respect of other earlier years in that honours section. I have tweaked the link to point to Scottish Football League Division Two (which redirects as above); but the whole thing is rather confusing and having no article for the original Div. 2 seems an omission; unless I've failed to find it (not impossible!). Maybe another editor with a bit more time available can have a look and see if there's a better way to do it. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've sorted out the Morrison article. GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Claudiu Vîlcu

Does this guy pass WP:NFOOTBALL or not? Govvy (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

He's played in the Moldovan National Division which is apparently a fully professional league. So yes, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Odisseas vs. Odysseas

In Odisseas Vlachodimos article, should we write "Odisseas" or "Odysseas"? Since some people started changing his first name to "Odysseas", I added "also known as Odysseas" to the lead. Apparently, it didn't help much. Please give your input at the talk page. SLBedit (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Vlachodimos represented Germany at youth level, but now he's eligible to represent Greece. So I changed the lead to "is a Greek footballer". Is it okay? SLBedit (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As the article is located at 'Odisseas' we should use that spelling throughout. If there is consensus at WP:RM to move the page to 'Odysseas' then use that spelling throughout. And no, that is not standard wording for players born in one country who represent another. GiantSnowman 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For some reason, since he joined Benfica, he changed his name to Odysseas (which is now repeated in the lead, by the way), hence the "also known as Odysseas". SLBedit (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on secondary source. wiki article should reporting notable alternative spelling that appeared in secondary source. Also, wiki used to have Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian and people stick to that essay. I wonder wiki user would stick to one and only one Greek romanization method or not. But sometimes user just edit out alternative spelling in the Greek articles. i and y different may be not quite notable to mention, but sometimes more variation was also observed such as in Dimitris Melissanidis (Dimitrios, Melisanidis). As a side note, Chinese articles are in complete nightmare that came with {{Chinese}} infobox, as many name were not under standard Chinese pinyin translation but under their local dialect. Matthew hk (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Is he "also known as Odysseas" or should it instead be a footnote indicating that it's an alternative spelling/transliteration? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A footnote would be better because, currently, "Odysseas" is only written twice in the article. SLBedit (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've footnoted the alternative spelling, which shouldn't be too controversial. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk)

S.S. Lazio Women 2015

Please, move the title to S.S. Lazio Calcio Femminile (as before) and create a new page for S.S. Lazio Women 2015. They are two different clubs, that play in different leagues.--79.36.72.222 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlike other team that bought license from another club, S.S. Lazio the football club and S.S. Lazio the multi sport club , is somehow closely related, thus the two teams were also closely related, just one under the professional football club one under muilt sport club of the same name. It may worth to discuss for such one league one team issue or the "B" team was not split from the main article for the women section of Lazio in general. Matthew hk (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Lazio Calcio Femminile have an history that continues in C. These are two clubs that could play against.--79.36.72.222 (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That is something like Juventus verse Juventus B. They can against each other in theory, but they also shared the same club crest and same origins. The argument is not about they are two clubs since the men football club is originate from the multi sport club while the women football club affiliated to the multi sport club. Forking content from stub article is not the best way. Matthew hk (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Zdenek Bezdek

I'm trying to decide if Draft:Zdenek Bezdek satisfies WP:FOOTY. It appears that he has played at least one game for FC Baník Ostrava, but I can't tell if this site is a reliable source. Could someone who understands Czech check? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Lidovky.cz is the website for a Czech newspaper (Lidové noviny) which should be reliable. However, I'm not sure i understand what that link is suggesting. It indicates he played in a 6th round match between České Budějovice and Ostrava which ended 0-2 (but according to DNES' football database and RSSSF, these teams didn't play in the 6th round of the 2008/09 season nor did either match end 0-2). I'm guessing the match was with Ostava's youth team (RSSSF indicates Ostrava didn't play České Budějovice in the cup that year). Even if he made a single 15 minute substitute's appearance in the Czech first division during 2008, that's not enough to meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL (as at age 28, his career is winding down in semi-pro, regional league football). Jogurney (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict on prize list

Hello everybody,

Sorry for my bad English.

On the Germany team article, on the lead section, there is this sentence:
After winning the 2017 Confederations Cup, it became one of the only four nations—alongside Brazil, Argentina and France—to win all three most important men's titles recognised by FIFA: the World Cup, the Confederations Cup, and the Olympic tournament. They have also won their respective continental championship (Copa América for Argentina and Brazil, and UEFA European Championship for France and Germany). with two sources.

But there are many problems with this sentence :

• Germany team has never won Olympic tournament (only East Germany team and the current Germany team is not the fusion of the two Germany teams but the team of the Deutscher Fußball-Bund what was already the federation of the West Germany), moreover for the great websites of football statistics like Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, Germany includes West Germany but not East Germany for all statistics. Basically, everybody agrees on 19 World Cup appearances and not 20 (number with East Germany);
• the two sources didn't say Germany team has won Olympic tournament. The best result for the team in the prize lists of the sources (FIFA website) is the silver medal in 2016 and the results before 1990 were in the list too with the bronze medal in 1988 ([4]);
• when the sentence was written with this sources, the sentence didn't say that but "after the 2017 Confederations Cup it became one of the only four nations - alongside Brazil, Argentina and France - to win all full senior international major titles: FIFA World Cup, Confederations Cup and the applicable continental tournament". No olympic tournament in this sentence;
• moreover, the sources do not say either that it is the fourth nation but only: Germany team won this three tournaments. For the four nations, we only know by cross-checking with other articles or personal knowledge;
• according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." this content is not even developed in the body of the article.

Despite all this elements, an contributor has reverted the deletion of this sentence on 16 October and doesn't want revert his revert. Since three weeks, I try to convince this contributor. This contributor doesn't see the problems et doesn't accept the sources (Wikipedia:Five pillars) et his only argument is that it isn't his opinion despite other contributor with similar contribution than me (@Wildboy7: agrees with me: cf. [5]).

I want your support for remove this sentence but keeping the sources that are useful for the precedent sentence.

GabrieL (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi, which is the preferred option between the two in the case one’s name is already taken by another article on Wikipedia?

“Felix Michel (footballer)” or “George Felix Michel” (his full name).

He is commonly called “Felix Michel”, but his full name is George Felix Michel, should that be the article name or should we stick to what it’s called now (“Felix Michel (footballer))? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Do they have the same year of birth? SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless he's reasonably well known as George Felix Michel, the article should be at Felix Michel (footballer). Hack (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationality in lead

Hi, this may have been already discussed but what is the standard for the nationality of people with multiple citizenships in the lead?

For example, Alexander Michel and Felix Michel have just been called up to the Lebanon national football team thanks to their Lebanese origins. They have however lived all their lives in Sweden and, other than having a Lebanese grandfather, are completely Swedish. Is the correct lead "...is a Swedish footballer of Lebanese descent who plays for..." (current), "...is a Lebanese footballer who plays for..." (because of the national team they play for), "...is a Swedish-Lebanese footballer who plays for..." (therefore considering both citizenships equally) or other?

Thanks for your time. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends on how controversial it is... I usually go for "X is a professional football player for X and the X national team" then you can go into the specifics of where they were born and raised and what myriad nationalities they may have afterwards. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate I'm probably in a minority, but I've never understood the problem with the construct "Felix Michel is a Lebanese-Swedish footballer". Number 57 22:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH: Lebanese-Swedish doesn't have a clear and obvious meaning.

Omitting a "nationality" from the opening sentence – as "is a professional footballer who plays for Foo United and the Bah national team" – and then explaining lower down the lead section "was born and raised in Fooland, and plays for the Bah national team for which he qualifies because his mother comes from that country", tells the reader clearly what the state of play is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Lebanese-Swedish clearly tells me he's a Swedish national of Lebanese descent, but I think Eduardo da Silva is a better example to use. Based on that I'd go "Felix Michel is a Swedish-born Lebanese footballer"... SportingFlyer talk 00:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem being that Eduardo isn't a "Brazilian born Croatian footballer". He is a player with dual nationality, who has chosen to represent one of his nationalities at an international level. Where he was born, and what teams he represents is conflating two different meaning of nationality in the lede that is already a mess because we use footballing nationality in many cases (such as English over British) even though that's a fundamentally flawed premise. It's that kind of problem that gets very sticky with people who are eligible for multiple countries without actually having acquired the nationality (the Home Nations are obvious examples). Eduardo in particular, like Olisadebe, only met the eligibility criteria for Croatian representative nationality because he had not represented Brazil at any prior official competition. However, if he had represented Brazil he might have still taken Croatian citizenship without acquiring eligibility to play for Croatia.

These are but a few examples why we avoid this kind of crap. Koncorde (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's accurate. You have to give up prior citizenship to become a Croatian citizen unless you are of Croatian descent. SportingFlyer talk 01:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not according to the Article 5, which states Croatia recognises dual citizenship. Article 2 makes reference to relinquishing a citizenship, but is followed by an "OR" statement indicating that alternatively they may meet the requirement of residency (amongst other factors). Even Wikipedia's own page on Croatian nationality law states so and there are dozens of blogs about Americans applying for dual nationality citizenship. Koncorde (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the two players mentioned here, they have both acquired Lebanese citizenship due to their origins while maintaining their previous Swedish nationality, making them both Swedish and Lebanese. I have updated both their leads with “is a professional football player who plays for...” and added an explanation about their nationalities under the header. Nehme1499 (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

SK, JK, FK for Turkish clubs

The correct names of some Turkish clubs are "Galatasaray SK", "Fenerbahçe SK", "Beşiktaş JK", "İstanbul Başakşehir FK" - without dots for SK, JK, FK. All of these clubs use these names in their local and foreign official websites and social media presences as such, without the dots. To further support this, you cannot have a Turkish name or acronym with dots in it, as this is explicitly stated by the Turkish Language Association.

If we are changing names for consistency in English, how about we just change Başakşehir F.K. (futbol kulübü = football club) to Başakşehir F.C. then? It doesn't make sense. There's no point in trying to alter these foreign names to match English naming norms or consistency. I would say accuracy is more important, so trying to anglicise the writing of these names doesn't help. Junk2711 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to prove the version without dot, list out each club without dot in the primary source (club website) and secondary source. It is not relevant for Turkish Language Association , but WP:RS that exactly about those clubs.

And yes Galatasaray website https://www.galatasaray.org use SK (without dot)

fenerbahce website https://www.fenerbahce.org/ also use SK (without dot)

But please list out the rest of the Turkish Super League, i.e. 18 more club in primary source, plus 20 more secondary sources.

However, as i said before, http://www.tff.org use dot in the abbreviation. May be you need more secondary source for proving not dot is more common.

For Ngram, use Fenerbahce and Galatasaray as example, there is no result for any suffix at all [6][7] Matthew hk (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing all the dots if possible, but ideally I would like us to be consistent. People seem to think the dots are necessary to indicate an abbreviation, but that just isn't how things work any more. There was a time when all initialisms would have had dots, but most people are perfectly content with FBI, CIA and UEFA not having dots, so why are we insisting on keeping them for football clubs when they're purely stylistic? – PeeJay 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of mentioning the Turkish Language Association is to say that this is a general naming rule so the situation is the same for every Turkish club. Otherwise of course I wouldn't cite a Turkish language rule for use in English.

Asking for 40 citations to see this seems a bit absurd. The primary, general citation is the naming rule here (in Turkish) - fourth paragraph, right above #2 says no names besides T.C. or T. (respectively meaning Turkish Republic and Turkey) can use dots. The secondary sources can then be the clubs. As we also talked before, the Turkish Football Federation website is not very reliable with names and I'll also quote that here:

"the TFF website does not feature the club names with SK or JK. In addition, they are unfortunately not a reliable source for names. Just yesterday this player name was in the news for being ridiculously long. They wrote his name twice but because it is the official FA website people assumed his name was just peculiar. The name was later corrected. Long story short, the TFF site is not reliable for names and other sources using dots are incorrect too." - Junk2711 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Junk2711, it is not that harsh when you want to move 40 or more Turkish football clubs articles for requesting just 40 citations. Matthew hk (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - fair enough. Though there are only a few other clubs besides Galatasaray and Fenerbahce. For the other Super Lig clubs: Kasimpasa, Basaksehir, Besiktas Junk2711 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, no Croatian/Serbian/Slovenian/Bosnian clubs use dots for abbreviations on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer talk 13:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Despite there being no consensus here, Junk2711 has started a handful of RMs, referring back to this discussion as a rationale, as well as moving another one. The discussions are here, here, here and here. Cheers, Number 57 12:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not the happiest with this procedural development, but having thought about it, I'm in full support of doing a move in bulk for the 100 Turkish teams, since they don't use the periods for abbreviations in Turkey and other Eastern European teams lack them (GNK Dinamo Zagreb, AEK Athens, CFR Cluj). SportingFlyer talk 13:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not sufficient; saying to move because nearby nations do is like saying 'do X because all English-language nations do' even though we have Los Angeles FC but Manchester United F.C.... GiantSnowman 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not my point - a quick web search/twitter search shows Turkey rarely if ever uses periods on their abbreviations, and the neighboring nations rule shows our abbreviation periods rule is not absolute (and not for exceptions where "FC" is the official name of the club). SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hole (association football)

Currently Hole (association football) is a redirect to Playmaker. There is, however, no mention of 'hole' that I can see at Playmaker. Is there a more sensible place for that redirect to point to? Or, should some mention of 'hole' be added to Playmaker? Or or, should the page have content in its own right, rather than redirecting elsewhere? I honestly have no idea, as I know very little about football. Cnilep (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the last pre-redirect article: [8] I don't think playmaker is the best choice, to be honest. Might be better off deleted. SportingFlyer talk 04:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Playmaker could be suitable choice with a simple adddition in the advanced playmaker section, e.g. "advanced playmakers are sometimes described as playing in "the hole" because they occupy a position between midfield and the strickers. This could go before or after the mention of the number 10. Although you have to ask who would be searching using "hole" (a search for "the hole" might be more reasonable) and the more common "number 10" doesn't have a redirect. On the whole, such redirects open a whole can of worms. What about trequartistas or fantasisti, which get a mention in Association_football_positions#Attacking_midfield and Midfielder#Attacking_midfielder (redirect target of trequartistas), possible alternatives for the redirect with appropriate addition to cover the hole term. A delete might be simpler.   Jts1882 | talk  08:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The hole (football) and The hole (soccer) currently redirect to Forward (association football). Hole (association football), Hole (football), and Hole (soccer) each redirect to Playmaker. The Glossary of association football terms as well as several player biographies link to Hole (association football), and some player bios link to The hole (football). Cnilep (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

East, West and Germany National Team

Would someone like to join the discussion about the appropriate lineage of the East Germany Mens National Team and West Germany Mens National Team history in relation to the Germany Mens National Team on Talk:Germany national football team? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

FIFA consider Germany the successor to the West Germany team. Just like they consider Russia as the successor of the Soviet Union and Serbia the successor of Yugoslavia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Barawa football team

Should this page be on Barawa national football team and the redirect the other way around or not? Govvy (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks better this way round to me. The team can in no way be seen as representing anything approaching a separate nation or region. See related RM here.Spike 'em (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

, K, fair enough, Govvy (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Partial ban on "YYYY-YY" article titles (eg 2008–09 Premier League)

There is a proposal to change Wikipedia's Manual of Style to bar the use of YYYY-YY in articles and titles if ending in -01, -02 etc up to -12 ("unless in close proximity to other ranges in this format that end with numbers outside the 01–12 range"), as "anything ending in "-01" through "-12" ... is routinely misread as YYYY-MM."
Titles such as "2008–09 Premier League" would not be permitted ("2008–2009 Premier League" would be required) but "2018–19 Premier League" would still be allowed. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Clarifying date ranges in YYYY–YY format. 92.19.28.168 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Big Jock Knew

I am wondering whether the above article is now more about the scandal than it is about the song. If it is, and the addition of material that Big Jock cannot possibly have known about as it is too recent may suggest so, should the title be changed to reflect this? Britmax (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I added it, so not sure why not address me or at least tag me in the discussion? I was uncertain which article to add the info to (person bio or song), in the end went for both at present although fully welcome such discussions. I would say that although relating to later incidents, its valid to add IMO as the debate on whether torbett should have been allowed around children related back (in the sources, not to synthed by me) to the original incidents when stein or others may or may not have been aware and may or may not have booted him out. And this is the theme of the song. Crowsus (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I was seeking a general opinion of which way the article might be going. You make an interesting case regarding the incidents having happened while he was around, lets see what other opinions are. Capital letter for surnames, by the way. Britmax (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

New AS Roma logo

Hi everyone. In the page A.S. Roma there is the old logo (used between 2013 and 2017) and not the new one: could anyone upload the 2017 logo?--Luca•M 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded it by myself, could anyone see if the upload is ok?--Luca•M 20:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Roger Hoy

Is anyone able to find any other obituary for Roger Hoy besides the Spurs one? Govvy (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This guy? [9] SportingFlyer talk 12:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: That URL doesn't work, are you sure you copied it right? Govvy (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The source is behind a paywall and also blacklisted on wikipedia. Crystal Palace also have a brief statement like Spurs.   Jts1882 | talk  13:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not an obit, but some information on his condition can be found at the Tottenham Tribute Trust. Another footballer dying too young with dementia.   Jts1882 | talk  13:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882, I used those links as citations. Hope that helps the article, not sure I can do much more for it at the moment. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was blacklisted and only hit the paywall - was just putting it up as a possible alternative. Glad it's sorted! SportingFlyer talk 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Simon Hooper referee

I see that there is currently no article on Simon Hooper who is now a Select Group referee. It appears that there was an article, but this was deleted on 11 October 2018. Can this article be reinstated? Thanks. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Daemonickangaroo2018: The article deleted on 11 October 2018 was not about the referee, it was about a completely different person (a "social media influencer", whatever the hell that is), so if we were to have an article about the ref it would need to be started from scratch.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: - how do you know who the previous article was about? I've seen other red-link pages that say it was deleted, but it would be good to know if the deleted person was the same person or not. eg. Ralph Ferron - a Luxembourg international footballer with 26 caps, or the "master of Buckhounds for George II". --Philk84 11:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Philk84: - I'm an admin, so I can see deleted articles. I can confirm that the article on Ralph Ferron deleted in early 2007 was indeed about the footballer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Category naming

I'm actually renaming Category:Divisiones regionales de fútbol players, Category:Divisiones regionales de fútbol and Category:Divisiones Regionales navigational boxes to Category:Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol players, Category:Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol and Category:Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol navigational boxes, to match up with the article name (Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol). But somehow @BrownHairedGirl and @Timrollpickering think this approach is incorrect and are reverting me by saying that I "gathered no consensus", since the category were created by other users back in the day and were all "abandoned". Some templates belonging to Category:Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol navigational boxes (or Category:Divisiones Regionales navigational boxes - I don't know anymore, since BHG is reverting everything) were not updated since the 2012-13 season.

A great example is Template:Preferente de Madrid. She reverted all my edits where I was updating the templates! Blind WP:HOUND I think it is.

Can you guys give some inputs on what you think it's the correct name of the cats, please? MYS77 ^✉ 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no view on the correct name. But if you want to rename the category, please nominate the category at WP:CFD, rather than moving it unilaterally. And especially, when two admins have reverted your out-of-process move, don't edit-war. That's a fast track to a WP:BLOCK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Inputs on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 12#Category:Divisiones regionales de fútbol are appreciated. Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories of Hammam-Lif

There are Category:CS Hammam-Lif and Category:Club Sportif de Hammam-Lif that should be merged, I guess. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 08:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Superchilum:  Done GiantSnowman 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thank you very much! --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS)

Hey all, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS) that is relevant to soccer in the U.S. at large, so I thought I'd post it here. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Football records in England

I didn't know we had this article, but I think a few trolls, sock puppets have been editing the article so I am not sure what's fake, correct etc. Might need reviewing, Govvy (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

English footballers abroad

Does anyone think an article based on the history of British and Irish players abroad would be notable subject to write about ? Dwanyewest (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure. Is there a list of Brazilian expat footballers, but deleted? List of Brazilian footballers in Serie A is survived only because it will be too long to include in List of foreign Serie A players. Matthew hk (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Dwayne is proposing "an article based on the history". I think that would have far more encyclopedic value than a laundry list of names of players...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If editor can dig out secondary source that had in-depth coverage on the history, it certainly worth to do it and passing WP:GNG. But most often i read in the news was trivial coverage of listing name and concluded their career is not good abroad. Robbie Keane as i remember was one of the them in these news coverage, and may be Paul Ince as counter example in those news. (and may be David Beckham). However, since lack of a book sized material on this subject, it seem difficult to craft an article without listing matter by user decided criteria. Matthew hk (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of books on the subject, eg this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Then it is my fault on googling. Matthew hk (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd be interesting - focus on notable aspects of it, eg the notorious reluctance of the Br players to learn languages, until Lineker broke that mould, or settle into the culture, see Luther Blissett for his comments on Rice Crispies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Then we seem talking about two kind of content of the article. On one side, A.C. Milan, Genoa C.F.C. were linked to English expats and sailors who spread the sports to the world, which would supported by the book cited by ChrisTheDude. And on another side, was the history about the cultural adaption of the expat footballers and their success / failure. If some journalist made nail comment/summary on adapting culture / tactics as an expat footballers (such as Italy), when such content could also survived in wikipedia. But comment on culture difference by individual players may or may not support a statement regarding all expat had to face this challenge. Or Spanish footballer or any expat footballer would face such language and culture challenge. Matthew hk (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Football manager" or "football coach"?

I've noticed that the new Celta de Vigo manager, Miguel Cardoso, has his article named as Miguel Cardoso (football coach), while Ricardo Rodríguez (a former Girona manager), has his article named as Ricardo Rodríguez (football manager). Both naming conventions are correct or should we move one of them? MYS77 ^✉ 13:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be 'manager'. GiantSnowman 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Manager is right. Out of interest, for countries where "coach" is the preferred word (Notably the US), do we refer to them as coaches in these articles, or keep it uniform? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Could we not move him to Miguel Cardoso, and move Miguel Cardoso to Miguel Cardoso (disambiguation)? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RfD for various Hole / The hole titles

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 18#The hole (football) regarding five titles with Hole or The hole, redirecting to either Forward (association football) or Playmaker. Comments are welcomed from contributors to this WikiProject. Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lebanon national team infobox kits

Hi,

Can someone help me out on creating the proper kits for the infobox of the Lebanon national football team? I would have no problem in doing it myself but I have zero knowledge on how to create and upload the correct templates.

Home Away

Thanks for your help. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrell Miller

Terrell Miller did not play for Brentford, Northwood (loan) or Carshalton Athletic (loan). He has been confused with Tyrell Miller-Rodney, who played for Brentford's youth and development teams between 2011 and 2015.. Refs for Miller Rodney's Northwood and Carshalton Athletic loans are here and here. For his joining and leaving Brentford, see here and here. I believe the cause is that [10] has been used as a source for Terrell Miller's career. Beatpoet (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Notability of Future USL Teams

While doing NPP, I came across USL Chicago. This article had existed for a while but was then redirected. I did a quick archive search to see if this topic of future USL teams had been discussed before and didn't find a discussion. At what point would a new USL team be notable? Upon annoucement? Sometime closer to start of play? I don't know enough about the USL to have a good sense on this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There's actually a semi-related discussion to this currently taking place at Talk:Birmingham Legion FC, just as a general fyi. Jay eyem (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not surprised there are other discussions going on. I see SounderBruce (who I respect) weighing in there that they're notable - it was his work on the USL Chicago that stopped me short of taking the same route Walter Görlitz did and redirecting. Pinging Markdask as other participant. I would suggest some sort of RfC might be helpful for US soccer teams rather than the repeated trips to AfD which seems to yield conflicting results. But again USL as a league is quite outside my area of expertise and so that could be a horrible idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest an RfC, unless it's on WP:GNG. That's clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If they pass WP:GNG, they should be kept. Birmingham clearly does, I've put sources on the talk page. USL Chicago probably does as well though there's still a long ways to go with that one - I could see that going either way. But AfD is the proper place to have these discussions - seems as if there's a lot of random redirecting going on. SportingFlyer talk 00:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Olympic footballers

Hi. As part of my ongoing work to create biographies on Olympians, I've now created a stub for all the missing footballers. If you're intrested, you can find the full list here. I went the squad lists for each Olympics (example), and completed the red links for those with biographies on Sports Reference. The caveat is that I've not gone through every single existing blue link to ensure it's the right person, but if you spot anyone who is missing, I'm more than happy to create a stub for them (drop a note on my talkpage). Likewise, if I've created a stub and the subject already exists (different spelling, etc), then I've no problem if you want to merge/redirect to the earlier article. Or, if you prefer, drop me a note and I'll do the work on that too.

Now football is my least favourite sport (please put your pitchforks down), and as a result, I know next to nothing about individuals and teams. So any questions about confusion between two players are probably best left to this talkpage, and not mine! And lastly, thanks to @GiantSnowman: for some early guidance. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was I under the impression that for men's football, playing at the Olympics didn't grant notability to players as it's not classed as senior international matches as the squads are largely U23 players (unlike women's Olympic football, which is full age teams). This is certainly how I recall things going at AfD when this has come up. Number 57 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

They pass both WP:NFOOTY and WP:NOLYMPICS. Specifically NFOOTY says

Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. Spike 'em (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

From 1992 on, Olympic men's football matches haven't counted as full internationals due to the age limits. Hack (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt they pass WP:OLYMPICS, and I'd read WP:NFOOTY to read as:

Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in:

• any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA,
• a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or
• the Olympic Games.

Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In order to came out from the grey area, better pass both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. As i remember some US Olympics footballer, as they were playing college soccer at that time, were consider not passing NFOOTY (or GNG all together). Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Number 57. Per the replies above, they all pass WP:NOLY. I know you have different criteria for N:FOOTY, but I think they pass that as well. If it helps, many of the biographies I created had multiple links to other langauge wiki articles, and the ones I looked at, had a wealth of information in their respective languages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been long-established that competing at the Olympics - as footballer or other - grants notability. GiantSnowman 09:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

May be i messed my memory of early 2010s arguments then. Matthew hk (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree you could fail WP:NFOOTY but still pass WP:NOLY. SportingFlyer talk 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, NFOOTY does not apply to Olympic qualifying, correct? (e.g. Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification) S.A. Julio (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: if they were considered full international matches, then they would count under WP:NFOOTY. Hack (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Jim Iley

This is more of a ping to editors who want to help out bringing the article up to a respectable standard. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 09:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is National Youth League (New Zealand) notable?

My feeling is it doesn't meet WP:FOOTYN as it's a youth league so not the highest league in the country (that being New Zealand Football Championship for men). I nominated it for deletion but Quazarrr who wrote the article removed it as it would be top league only it's top for youth. It doesn't meet WP:N either so feels like it should be deleted but I'm not clear on it so came here. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, to be honest I'm not entirely sure either. But, seeing as multiple other youth leagues feature on Wikipedia, such as the neighbouring Y-League (even featuring individual seasons), I feel the article may stand a chance at remaining. Would love to hear the outcome! Quazarrr (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: The league can be included as an article if it meets general notability requirements. There are articles on youth leagues in English football, e.g. Professional Development League (more correctly leagues) and its predessor, the Premier Academy League. There are even a few season pages. I don't see why the New Zealand league shouldn't meet similar criteria if there are sufficient reliable sources.   Jts1882 | talk  08:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I am thinking about it, I may be getting an article about the league (Where it could be notable) confused with season articles (where it probably isn't). NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not one of the "generally notable" leagues, but WP:FOOTYN doesn't give an automatic notability presumption to any league - it's written more like a "common outcomes" section. Leagues need to pass WP:GNG (if not WP:NORG, but I haven't seen this requirement for leagues?) In any case if more coverage like this exists [11] I think the league is likely to be notable, because even if that's routine coverage, a lot of routine coverage will at least make it clear the league is consistently covered by local press. I don't know how many of the sources on the page count toward GNG though, but I'd at least have a dig around to see if other coverage exists. SportingFlyer talk 09:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if the league is notable, the individual seasons are likely not. GiantSnowman 09:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Current international squad ordering

Hi all, I recently saw Danielmordor (talk · contribs) re-order the Luxembourg national football team (and other) current squad to be sorted by number of caps. I originally put it in following the order of the press release both by local press and the local FA - alphabetical - and this appears to be the standard across the various FAs and their press releases. Looking at the Manual of Style for national teams, I don't see anything noted about ordering criteria here, so I'm wondering if there is already a consensus for this, or if one needs to be decided? Cheers, --Philk84 15:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ordered by position and then alphabetically. GiantSnowman 16:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, unless the squad is for a tournament for which squad numbers are assigned (i.e. the World Cup or a continental championship, not qualifiers), in which case they should be sorted by position and then squad number. – PeeJay 16:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, shouldn't it be position and then squad numbers? Kante4 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but Luxembourg (and other smaller countries) don't normally assign (or rather, announce) squad numbers in advance. So while I would agree that Squad Numbers should be used, in the cases where there aren't any the squad would then be ordered by name rather than number of caps, yes? Does four people count as enough of a consensus to revert these cap-sorting edits? --Philk84 19:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, name when no numbers available. Kante4 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Position, caps, goals, then alphabetically. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? – PeeJay 11:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Would like a reason aswell. Kante4 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe it gives more accurate representation of the team squad, that's all. The first letter of player's last name and the number that's changing every month just don't carry any valuable information, and even if you wan't to see it, it's just one click away because the table is sortable. --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If the reader wants to sort by the number of caps, they can also do that by using the sortability function, but I think it's more useful to them to see the players in an alphabetical list. If they're looking to see if a specific player was selected (which is more likely than wanting to see who the most-capped player is), then alphabetical order is a more sensible default setting. – PeeJay 16:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, how do you sort players tied on caps? --SuperJew (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 ;(UTC)

I also think that someone looking through the squad for a player is more likely to search through it based on name rather than caps so that should be the default ordering. Spike 'em (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability for Cup fixtures

There has been a discussion on this topic previously, but it doesn't appear that any consensus was reached. I think it would be useful for us to try to reach a consensus.

Currently, per the notability guidelines, a player is only notable if they play against another fully professional league side. This leads to the absurdity that if John Doe starts for Manchester United and scores a hat-trick against Wrexham (top of the 5th tier) in the FA Cup, he is not notable. However, if he comes off the bench in the 93rd minute against Macclesfield Town (bottom of the 4th tier), he is. Even within competitions this causes issues. Josh Key played an EFL Trophy fixture for a professional football league side (Exeter City), and thus meets notability criteria. Meanwhile, James Dodd played an EFL Trophy fixture for a professional football league side (Exeter City), but fails to meet notability criteria, as he played in a fixture against West Ham United Academy (who for the uninitiated compete alongside senior clubs in this competition). It is worth noting that the local paper list Dodd as having been 'handed his City debut' in this match - the opposition was not a concern. The same is true on the club website: "James made his first team debut for City as a second-half substitute in the club's 2-0 win over West Ham United under-21s in the 2018/19 Checkatrade.com Trophy."

It seems to me that this is an oversight in the notability criteria that ought to be corrected. A player is notable due to them making their professional debut for a professional side in a competitive fixture. The opposition in that fixture is a footnote, not the point from which notability stems. Domeditrix (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The essence of WP:NFOOTBALL is that you must play a competitive game for a team from a fully-professional league against a team also from a fully-professional league. This is deliberate, and no 'oversight'. It's no different to a youth player for a Premier League team getting a run-out in the FA Cup against a non-league team. GiantSnowman 16:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: recent AFD consensus confirming that - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Breslin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Upton.

It may seem a bit pedantic in this instance, but the SNG covers the entire world, not just a minor English competition. I assume James Dodd could be notable in the near future, so perhaps the article should be sent to draftspace instead. If he never plays in a game against two fully professional teams again, I wouldn't consider him notable for this appearance. Also if a footballer's only claim to notability is coming off the bench against Macclesfield Town for one minute, he may technically pass the SNG but nevertheless fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 09:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

James H. Logan

On making some edits regarding Raith Rovers players in the McCrae's Battalion article, I noticed that the listing of James Logan linked to the wrong player. The player in question is team captain James H. Logan (the "H" being given as Henry in some references to him), not, apparently, the same individual as Jimmy Logan (footballer) (James Merrilees Logan) or James Logan (defender, born 1885) (James Lochhead Logan, who coincidentally later managed RRFC). Logan is the only one of the Rovers players not to have a linked article, particularly puzzling as he was the captain and the only info I can find regarding him is of him simply in various lists of his comrades. I'm not particularly au fait with using football resources and wondered if anyone here could unearth material with which to create an article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the info that James Lochhead Logan was the post-war manager is not cited so this may in fact be a misattribution of our man James H's later career. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps James Logan (forward, born 1885) is part of the picture. The article appears to only cover part of his career and no middle initial is given. Seems like a bit of straightening out between the 3 or 4 individuals is required... Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes most of the career of James Logan (forward, born 1885) (he only played as a CF for Bradford City, most of his career he was CH, RH or LH) is missing 1906-1909 Chesterfield, 1909-1912 Bradford PA, Raith Rovers 1912-1916. James Henry Logan born 17-10-1885 (I'm not sure where, sources don't agree) had two spells as a Raith Rovers manager. He also managed Wrexham (January 1937 - May 1938). Outside football he sold candy, tobacco and managed a hotel. He rose to the rank of captain during WW I. Cattivi (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So the attribution of the manager's post to James Logan (defender, born 1885) is incorrect and it should be to James Logan (forward, born 1885), the latter being the James H. Logan we are looking for? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the link in [[12]] is wrong as well. Cattivi (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As you have the sources for this, would you be able to address it please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cattivi: If you don't have the time to do it yourself, I can update him from Joyce, Stuart Basson's Chesterfield site and newspaper sources. The only thing mentioned above that I couldn't source are his selling sweets and tobacco. Also, do you have a convincing source for when he was a St Bernard's player? Joyce, ENFA (the free-to-access bit) and presumably the Bradford City book say he was one, but newspapers both English and Scottish have Bradford City signing him from Edinburgh Myrtle straight after the Junior international at the beginning of April 1905, in which he played CF. So when could he have been at St Bernard's, a senior club? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

An article in the Dundee Evening Telegraph 9 February 1932 page 8 mentions his candy shops in Kirkcaldy and five years as a hotel proprietor in Kirriemuir (between his two spells as Raith Rovers manager). Not sure about St Bernards, you can find it in Emms-Wells Scottish league players' records as well. I also found him the 1939 register living in Amersham, still in the candy business, also selling tobacco and owning a restaurant. (yes this is a primary source) Cattivi (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That's great @Struway2:; did you find evidence linking him to Raith Rovers as player, captain and/or manager? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Player and both spells as manager, yes. Captain no, but you said above that some James Logan was the captain, so I assumed you had a source for that? The other thing I can't do is his Raith playing stats, keep thinking about buying a suitable source for early Scottish players but never actually do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have an additional source, Litster's Record of Pre-War Scottish League Players. He has James Henry Logan (17 October 1885, Dunbar - 7 June 1961, Edinburgh) as having played for St Bernards, Bradford City, Chesterfield, Bradford PA and Raith Rovers, followed by management stints with Raith Rovers and Wrexham. Jimmy Logan's career is as on his wiki page. James Logan (defender, born 1885) is Queen's Park, Aston Villa, Rangers and St Mirren, plus his international stats, no management career. Beatpoet (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Captain was his final rank in the army. You can use the Dundee Evening Telegraph article for this as well. Cattivi (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

These might also help, A is a book by David Ross that details James H Logans career including Raith player, soldier, Raith manager and Wrexham manager; B is a similar discussion to this one 5 years ago on the Scottish League forum. That also mentions a possible confusion with another J Logan who signed for Bradford City from St Bernard's at the same time as James H, although it may be the same player and just a spell at St Bernard's between Myrtle and Bradford? This source C, a self published effort, states that a James Logan at Bradford was the brother of Peter Logan who won the cup with them, but haven't seen those linked in other sources when you'd think it would be a good bit of trivia: war hero brother of cup winner, maybe a Bradford expert could confirm if their club signed two J Logans that year or not, if not it probably is all the same player, he seemed to play a few positions. There's also this daft thing here D and a photo with the other Raith mccraes players here E. I would definitely be moving manager stuff from the Rangers player to the Bradford player ASAP. Crowsus (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not the only one that was bothered by the Myrtle/St Bernards inconsistency, then... But all sources follow James H Logan consistently through from Bradford City via Chesterfield to Raith Rovers player soldier and manager, which is what we were looking for proof of. And the Dundee Telegraph article reckon he's the same chap who played in the Junior internationals, so who are we to worry? There are contemporary newspaper sources for Peter Logan being a brother of James Logan of Chesterfield ex Bradford. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That's good news then, could you please add that ref to the expansion of his bio at some point, then it could also be added to that of Peter (along with the blog ref which I thinking would be fair enough to include as long as other sources back up the main fact of them being related?) Crowsus (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Have done (to both articles). Feel free to re-add the blog. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The source that our James Logan was team captain is this article in the online version of the Kirkcaldy newspaper; sorry for any confusion@Struway2:, I wasn't looking for evidence that he had been captain, just that the JL we were homing in on was confirmed as the one who had been captain, from the choice of JLs on offer. I think I saw his captaincy mentioned elsewhere too; I'll try to dig it out. @Cattivi:, I've only had a brief search for the Telegraph(/Tully) archives with no joy so far but I'll try again later. Does it require subscription? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I've started expanding James Logan (forward, born 1885) from the sources supplied by everyone here and have tagged it as {{under construction}}. Mainly as an excuse for leaving unsourced stuff in temporarily. Please feel free to join in. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The James Logan who played for Bradford City - from the Frost book - LOGAN JH (CF) born Dunbar 1885 joined from St Bernards in April 1905, left to join Chesterfield in August 1906 (all page 401); he is James H Logan with 5 league apps (1 goal) in 1905–06 season, no cup appearances (all page 385). GiantSnowman 12:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the reference in the Fife Free Press here to Logan being team captain may well be doubtful, quite possibly confusion with his army rank and particularly as it is not repeated in this article, already mentioned above, of only two days later.

A bit of a tangent but a related one: it dawned on me that the James W.M. Gourlay noted to be standing on the right of the photograph in these newspaper articles and in the same shot in the war memorial at Starks Park, (in Commons here:[13]) is in a distinctly different uniform and is not noted in the newspaper articles as being among the seven Raith players who joined McCrae's battalion, all of whom are listed in the corresponding wikipedia article on the unit. Gourlay's uniform and cap badge appear to be that of the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, which would seem to match him with this Imperial War Museum listing. The photograph in the latter article apparently shows him wearing a football jersey. Was he another Raith player, hence his inclusion in the photograph or is that inclusion an aberrration or have another significance? With the great work you've all done regarding Logan, I'm hopeful somebody can turn up the answer. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A bit more digging has produced this, this and this which might give some leads. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been doing a bit of word of mouth research and it seems that James/Jimmy Gourlay was a well-known figure but so far I have only found a couple of references to him in reliable sources. He is not either of the footballing James Gourlays with existing articles; they are far too early. This Jimmy Gourlay did indeed play for Raith Rovers and was later the club’s chairman. Outside of football he was a primary teacher and was head of Auchtertool School in the 1920s, also, later I believe, head of St. Monans School, then head of the North School in Kirkcaldy, retiring in the late 50s, probably 1958. He was also provost of St Monans and provost of Kirkcaldy. Hopefully some useful material about him exists that could establish an article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming

Now that we have a month of birth for James H. Logan, I'd suggest renaming James Logan (forward, born 1885) and James Logan (defender, born 1885) to use birth month rather than playing position to disambiguate. Neither man played predominantly in the chosen playing position used: both played mainly in the half back line. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 13:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

But according to the page text, the defender was born in 1884, so shouldn't it be (footballer, born 188x) as appropriate? Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Even better. GiantSnowman 14:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and well spotted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Though the DoB was only changed recently, and the 2 web-based sources differ (AV have DoB 1885, and QP 1884). Do any of the book sources provide any information on this?Spike 'em (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking online for half an hour for anything more conclusive online with no joy. I did find this, a discussion on whether James L., Tommy Logan and Alec/x Logan (no article as yet, might sound do myself, there is enough for me a stub at least) were brothers (yes), but I know I can really use that as a source although some of it is appears to extensively quote bio details from a book including the fact of Alex and Tommy being related. The only thing I really have separately is this Villa profile for Alec which says James is his brother, and a profile for James vice versa. There is also this, a commonwealth graves profile for James Lochhead Logan who died aged 24 in 1947, son of a man with the same name resident in Birmingham. That would tie in with James Snr's link to the Villa earlier in life and would make the 1958 Worcester date seem more plausible, though no more so than returning to his hometown and dying a few months after his son. But I'm very much surmising and supposing a lot of that. Hoping someone with access to papers or other archives can find some thing definite on his life and hopefully something on the siblings, that forum thread definitely indicated there was something to go on, though it didn't confirm where that info came from. Crowsus (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that convinces me that people who claim to have drawn up their family tree accurately for umpteen generations might well be deluding themselves...

1. The 1911 Census transcription lists James Lochhead Logan as a 26-year-old professional footballer living in Sutton Coldfield. If correctly reported, recorded and transcribed, that age is compatible with a late 1884 birthdate but not with August 1885. His wife was named as Agnes Muir Logan, so the JL Logan who died aged 24 in 1947 is definitely the son of JL Logan the footballer.
2. FreeBMD lists the death of Agnes M Logan in Oldbury, Worcestershire, aged 68, in 1954.
3. The Probate Calendar confirms this was Agnes Muir Logan and that probate was granted to her husband, one James Lochhead Logan, publican. So in 1954, JL Logan would appear to be alive.
4. Speculation section: The only likely candidate I can find after that date is also on the Probate Calendar, a James Lockhead Logan resident of a nursing home in Worcester, death date 25 September 1968 (listed under 1974 probates, one wonders why it took five years to settle). But I couldn't find him on Findmypast or FreeBMD, so no DoB/age at death. That might imply he didn't die at home in England. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You can find him on Scotlandspeople.gov.uk He was 84 years old. His death was registered in Johnstone in Renfrewshire. Cattivi (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So you can... when I had a Scotlandspeople account years ago, I'm sure you couldn't even search without credits, so I never bothered trying. Hey ho. Shows him born in 1884 in Barrhead and Levern district, as well... thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like way to deep in conducting own WP:original research on interpreting the raw data. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully @Matthew hk: you do that all the time with financial records of Italian clubs...pot kettle black? GiantSnowman 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: direct c&p the profit value is fine, as well as paraphrase the wording in secondary source. But looking at his wife and deduce the identity of his husband, should be the work of journalist. Matthew hk (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't think that where a pair of full and unusual names are consistently available together in sources, it takes any original research to declare them the same people. Both the 1911 census and the 1954 probate calendar list Agnes Muir Logan explicitly as the wife of the then living person James Lochhead Logan, and the ages given for Mrs Logan are consistent with each other. As, according to Cattivi somewhere up above, they also were on the 1939 Register. If the names were more common, or didn't follow together through the sources, I'd agree with you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, strike reference to wrong bit of conversation. Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources should be avoided as much as possible. But that doesn't mean you should copy everything secondary sources write. If primary sources don't agree at all with secondary sources, the least you should do in my opinion, is not mention the information from secondary sources. If you do use information from a primary source, it should be clear from an explanatory note. Combining news reports can go horribly wrong as well. I don't think everybody will agree that everything a newspaper writes is a secondary source, it can be a secondary source is probably more accurate. In August a large part of the career of Bill Julian was removed and with good reason. Although Bill Julian trained a lot of clubs in the Netherlands, in most cases it wasn't the former Arsenal captain, it was his son Joseph William Julian, best known as Bill Julian, who had no significant career as a footballer in England. ["SPORT IN ENGELAND". "Limburger koerier : provinciaal dagblad". Heerlen, 07-04-1934. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 14-11-2018, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010349611:mpeg21:a0255] This interview is pretty clear. Bill Julian went to an Arsenal game in 1934. 'My father as a former captain still gets free tickets' If you don't know there were two trainers with that name, it might look well referenced, but actually it isn't. Cattivi (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So, can we rename them? Suggest James Logan (footballer, born 1885), maybe with new redirect at James Henry Logan and the other guy James Logan (footballer, born 1884), maybe with new redirect at James Lochhead Logan? I can confirm successful searches for birth and death certificate links using JL Logan's full name (you only have to buy the scan for the exact date, the list shows the year which is what we need for the article title and I would say doesn't stray too far into OR since the QPFC ref already said 1884)...?

PS total irrelevant additional information info here, while I was looking for JL Logan and family, one of the few people with his middle name is the poet Liz Lochhead, and the reason my searches kept suggesting her was because not only was her husband's name Logan, but his first name was Tom, the same as the footballer brother of James. Weird coincidence. Crowsus (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Please can you do this. Us menials can't overwrite the redirect at James Logan (footballer, born 1885). thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2:  Done GiantSnowman 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

England national playing style

I have tried bringing this subject up multiple times without any responses. I wish to know for the men's national football team should there be a subsection of the teams national playing style. I feel that is notable as there are many third person sources criticising as one the reasons for its lack of success. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You could do, but beware of generalising too much across eras. The Venables and Hoddle sides played very differently than under McClaren. And even within managerial eras: famously, the change to the sweeper system that worked so well under Robson, adopted during a World Cup. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SODOIT comes in here. If you feel you could create a suitible subsection, do it. Make sure it's well sourced... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] These surely are good sources Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} but I fear if I used them they will be reverted like the previous time. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lede for every Kosovar international footballer

It seem there is a wide spread issue of "X is a Kosovar Albanian footballer " in lede of the articles, which the issue differ from "Israeli Arab footballer".

Would any people have a watch on those articles , removing the wording "Albanian" ? Matthew hk (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot of them played for Albania national team(s) before switching to Kosovo after they were allowed into UEFA / FIFA in 2015/16, so it seems a reasonable term to use for those players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

But not for those not played for Albania (e.g. Benjamin Kololli) and previously played for Norway (e.g. Valon Berisha). Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA applies here - ethnicity not in the lede unless it's linked to their notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is that blockable offence if user keep on ignore WP:OPENPARA. For example, Bernard Berisha, Benjamin Kololli and Valon Berisha never played for Albania, and Gugi2001 keep on adding Albania the ethnicity to the lede. Matthew hk (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If a user disruptively edits by repeatedly breaching MOS, then yes, I would block. GiantSnowman 14:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that user has just been wikilinking the term Kosovo Albanians. The words were already there, therefore I can't see any reasonable grounds on which to block that editor -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Here is the revert diff: Special:Diff/869972795 and Special:Diff/869973246. Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't look through literally every edit. That's still only one edit, though - personally I'd be looking for a much wider pattern of disruptive editing in order to justify a block...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I posted more diff to ANI instead. Matthew hk (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It is reasonable to expect a reliable source that have played for Albania or identify as Albanian, otherwise remove per WP:BLP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• The case was solved by CU block of 6 accounts for socking. The thread may continued to discuss in which case ethnic group is relevant to Kosovan (i just realized the cat move to Kosovan instead of Kosovar due to different meaning in "OED", according to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 12) in lede. Which except dual nationality in sport (Albania-Kosovo internationals), i don't see other case is relevant. Even more irrelevant for dual internationals (in football) as Germany-Kosovo, Sweden-Kosovo, Norway-Kosovo, Switzerland-Kosovo except the very case of refugee as Kosovar (the native of Kosovo according to ODE). Matthew hk (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Error in a Greek Footballer's Surname

I am referring to a Panathinaikos's player in Greek Super League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasios_Chatzigiovannis Chatzigiovanis is with one n, not with double n As I see, in the text of the entry, the name has been written correctly, but the title is wrong May someone delete the double n from the title of the page? ThanksTonyathens1988 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It seem not an error but different romanization method. In this case , it need more reliable source to decide the version with one n or double n is more popular. Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:2012–13 Premier League table

Can someone please protect this article from vandalism as an IP keeps changing it to add an extra match and win to Manchester United's results. I am already guilty of edit warring. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit until an admin handles it.   Jts1882 | talk  10:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming issue

Robert Buchanan was a Scottish footballer who played for Chelsea, Southend and Gillingham. His date of birth does not seem to be known. How best to differentiate him from Robert Buchanan (footballer), who was also Scottish....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

When was he active? Perhaps something like “Robert Buchanan (1890s footballer)” if he was active in that decade. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Several sources give 1887 as year of birth. [19]. Cattivi (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for me, cheers. I was going based on my Gills books and Michael Joyce's pre-war players' records book, none of which give a DOB. Maybe his DOB has been discovered since they were published.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden point

There is currently a discussion on Golden point as to which name of football should be used. The link is here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition of short description

Recently I've seen a lot of edits like this: [20]. Is this really needed and why? Don't we have wikidata for this? Just a few years ago we were getting rid of persondata, and now this? --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a bot which runs after a new article is created which adds a short description per Wikipedia:Short_description. Nothing untoward. SportingFlyer talk 10:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox question: Paco Alcácer

Paco Alcácer was on a season-long transfer from Barcalona to Borussia Dortmund. Today, the latter club arranged to make it a transfer. So how does that appear in the infobox? Do we reflect the four-month transfer (and its associated stats) as club5 and the post singing to club6 or do we change the club5 entry to drop the transfer so that the player's stats with Dortmund appear on one row (because you know that's going to cause confusion, inaccuracies and edit wars)? I went with the latter option, but recognize that I could be wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The way I understand the news is that while Dortmund have already exercised their option to sign Alcácer permanently, formally, the permanent transfer will not go through before the end of the season. I don't think transfers are possible outside transfer windows. So, the infobox should probably reflect that the player is still on loan at the club while the storyline should mention that the permanent transfer has been agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And Josef Martínez showed the stats up to the conversion of the transfer and the remainder of play was on another line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the permanent transfer start from the new season on, this year should be on loan. Kante4 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Is that info correct? Can you provide a source that the transfer doesn't count as permanent yet? – PeeJay 11:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say if loan transfer that have buy option, then it is save to assume the transfer would effective after the loan. But for some case it just pretty hard to determinate which date is the effective date for some loan with conditional obligation to buy: the date of the condition was triggered or the date of announcement? Also, the press release wording of "bought" and "would excised" are different. Some press release had stated black and white effective on 1 July, and some did not, so i would rather prefer the date of announcement unless the press release had stated the exact effective date. Matthew hk (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: No, I'm afraid I am not aware of any explicit statements. I just went by what seems to be customary. With Dortmund being publicly traded, isn't the club required to inform their shareholders though? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrible squad templates

Template:FC Prishtina squad is the result of what happends when fans take control over things and make terrible changes thinking that way they are making their club look better. What shall we do? The template was initially made by Sadsadas and looked fine (here), but editors turned it into a mess. Should we return it to its initial form, or delete, or, what you all think? I don´t want to do anything bold without consulting you guys. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it back at first but reverted myself because i think it should be either moved to "FC Prishtina squad" again or that template should include info about the club, not info and squad. Kante4 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original name and format. If someone wants to make an overall club template akin to the likes of {{Arsenal F.C.}} it should a) not have the squad in b) have more than two bluelinks and c) not be on players' pages -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. Thanks FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

National team sections

Hi,

I was wondering is there was a standard order for the various sections of the national teams as I can't seem to find any consistency throughout the different articles. By sections I mean "History", "Team image", "Venues", "Competitive record", "Coaching staff", "Results and fixtures", "Players", "Records", ecc...

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Manual Of Style for Nationals teams: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams --Philk84 09:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That article seems to be too outdated/empty. It lacks too many sections present in today's national team articles, even important ones such as "Results and fixtures". Nehme1499 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced broadcasting rights

There's an IP editor [21] (previously [22]) who endlessly adds and modifies list of tournamets brodcasters. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

1. assume good faith. 2. Some articles/section were unsourced either (Serie A#International, List of Serie A broadcasters (just ext link not citation)). It may be wise to send {{uw-unsourced1}} (or level 2) if it really a hoax. Matthew hk (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor layout subheading query

I added a little to Paco Alcácer today including a subheading for his loan from Valencia to Getafe and one for going back. This was removed by Quite A Character in his edit reviews. I have no interest in any kind of battle over this in particular or generally but just wanted to be sure, I'm not saying I think I am right but couldn't confirm I was wrong either (QAC had his usual cartoon-hysterics way of pointing out this error in the summary ("AGAIN? No sub-sub-sub-sub-sections!"), no issues with that or any of the other tidy-ups but just a bit doubtful of that rule itself. I have had a quick look at templates but couldn't find anything obvious in terms of MOS for how deep the subheadings should go. We have to start at 2 ==s for the Career anyway, then 3 ===s for each permanent club. My understanding(?) was that any loan of a significant length, or each season for really wordy articles, should get its own subsection. That takes it to 4 =====s, which is the level the Alcácer Getafe loan was at. To me that's not excessive or unusual to see on articles, and broke up what was a fairly big (not huge, but sizable) Valencia section. In fact the only image in that section is of him playing for Getafe. It's beside the text for the loan spell, but still possibly more confusing that the loan having its own section within the Valencia bit, IMO. But if 4-level section headings are to be avoided wherever possible on Biographies or on everything, fair enough and I will do so. (I realise 5 =====s is too far btw, for one thing the text would almost be as small as the body text itself!) If someone could advise or point to a previous discussion for future reference, that would be grand. Crowsus (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for my edit summary, not encyclopedical at all (will not present any defence as it's not defendable). However, the following: i don't see the point of sub-sub-sections as i feel they create too much clutter in the display, and (in this case) Mr. Alcácer WAS a Valencia player when he was loaned to Getafe so the header title "Valencia" for his Getafe career is not misleading in any way (i also feel the clutter is much greater when you add one sub-section for the loan and another for the return to the parent club).

If you notice, i not only reverted your sub-section outline and/or engaged in hysterics, but i arranged refs you added and added another reference for his Getafe overall spell, which was not there. However, if the vast majority of the fellow users side with you on this one (i have a hunch they will, not meaning to disrespectful or anything) don't worry as i will cease to edit there as i have other articles (i.e. Javi Martínez which is now full of season-by-season sub-sections in the club career, and needless (just my opinion) infobox/statistical chart repetitions in storyline with the habitual BDFUTBOL/SOCCERWAY/etc refs (why have a box and a statistical chart when you are going to write/source that in storyline, saying over and over again "Mr. Martínez/Alcácer finished the X season with Y goals from appearances?). No worries from me giving up on this or that article forever if need be, don't want to be a nuisance to anyone (both Martínez and Alcácer are articles i improved dramatically from day one, but alas).

Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience (especially to Crowsus) --Quite A Character (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite A Character, No apology necessary, nor any need to revert, was just curious to know if I was breaking a solid rule or not. Seems its more a matter of opinion / personal preference, and as you are the more experienced editor with a lot more input to that article than me (including finding refs which are more interesting than just the stats) I'm happy to defer to whatever you think is best for it. Crowsus (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article seems clearer with the sub-sections, though other articles (I looked at Andy Carroll) don't have the loans broken out separately. I can't point to any guidelines, though. SportingFlyer talk 11:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• The relevant link is here: Wikipedia has no general standards or guidelines for what section headings are expected in the bodies of articles or what order they should take, because the diversity of presentation in various Wikipedia subjects is too great. MOS:BODY - so the disregarding of sub-sub-headings is just a personal preference. I'd possibly break things out by year though for best clarity. SportingFlyer talk 11:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Andy Carroll article has subsections for each season under each club, so is more broken up than Paco Alcácer, as he gets several seasons in the subsections covering his time at Valenica [edit: it was when I wrote this]. I don't think there should be a hard rule, as the amount of relevant material varies by player. Seasons and loans can easily be handled as paragraphs in many (most?) cases. A section only needs breaking up if it gets too long. If all the subsections are single paragraphs that is too much division.   Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD with headings on the the Alcacer article and think it's clarified the loan. Don't care if it's reverted. SportingFlyer talk 11:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that is an example of going a bit to far with subheadings as there is little in each. On the other hand, it might encourage people to add information to each season, which some people might find less daunting that editing one large section. Ultimately it is the content that matters, not the headings. Now I think about it, when I read football articles about a player I am often looking for information about where he was in a particular season and the subheadings make that easier.   Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ONE LINE just to say where he was born? I see (what i also see is that even some GOOD articles don't have that season-by-season and loan division - OK maybe the loans, but not the season-by-season)... I have to accept that display if that's the majority, but still had another go (replacing size of dashes and separating the paragraphs, as now sub-sub-sub-sections are now often only ONE paragraph, also relocated place of birth into start of club career as i have often seen without any problems, no need for that one-liner), sorry for the inconvenience again. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Birmingham City F.C. - something this article is one of a minority of Football League clubs

This article has been in the subject of a two-way disagreement on as to why there should be the "F.C." there or not between User:ImprovedWikiImprovment and the two users who reverted. I've had a look at some of the other club articles (e.g. Burnley F.C., Leicester City F.C., Cardiff City F.C., Swansea City A.F.C. etc. do not have that abbreviation at the end. One more edit from the same user within the next 24 hours would be an edit war between two others but who would be correct to leave it as "Birmingham City" with the F.C. or not? Iggy (Swan) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my vague recollection of the consensus on this issue is that clubs with no prefix/suffix should have the F.C. (e.g. Liverpool F.C.) and those without should not, although I can't find anything definitive in the archives. What I definitely remember is that refusal to accept whatever was agreed was what did for Sarumio (that and the socking to continue his disruption). Number 57 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment removed the F.C. at Birmingham City, whch has been there since before Sarumio, both Mattythewhite and I reverted them, and then they initiated a discussion at my talk page, but it's past my bedtime so I've pointed them at this thread.

Think one thing that was agreed in the Sarumio case was that people weren't to change the format used in any given article just because they felt like it. The club template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs does have FC, but then Template FC is a one-word clubname. And there were rather more F.C.s in place until relatively recently when a different editor (not ImprovedWikiImprovment) went round removing them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

So you’re saying what I saw as consensus is because of one editor removing the "FC"? Because if so then clearly I’ve made an error (and only if). IWI (chat) 23:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any F.C.s including on FAs like Chelsea and Man City, so it doesn't seem to matter that much if someone wants to remove it from Birmingham to match all the others as they currently are. Only exception is 'AFC Bournemouth' which is how it is appears atop the box. I know the same rules don't necessarily apply for different countries, but I had a quick glance at a few that sprung to mind: none of Barcelona, Bayern, Monaco, Roma, Porto and Milan have their prefix in that field even though they are all quite often referred to with it appended, particularly the latter two. Crowsus (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no consistency across football articles, even in the same country or league. I think the infobox should be stand alone so the FC needs to be there when it needs disambiguation (e.g. Arsenal, Liverpool, Burnley, Milan), but not for Birmingham City (the city would never be referred to this way) or Aston Villa; i.e. as described by Number 57 above. Alternatively it should always be included and match the article title (minus any disambiguation element).   Jts1882 | talk  07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The "F.C" only exists in the title to disambiguate. I back the former option, use "F.C." only when the team has no pre/suffix. Whatever consensus we reach here should essentially become a guideline for club articles. IWI (chat) 08:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The infobox defaults to the article title without disambiguation, i.e. if you leave |clubname= blank, you get Clubname F.C./A.F.C. above the box.

As to consistency/consensus: if you check out these two batches of contributions from July of this year, you'll see removal of F.C./A.F.C. (or adding the FC-less version to the previously blank clubname parameter, which has the same effect) at I think 27 different EFL club pages, which is more than a third of the 72.

Personally, I'd have no problem with either of Jts1882's alternatives. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That’s irrelevant since it’s clear there isn’t enough consistency to use standards as consensus; consensus will be made here. IWI (chat) 10:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Every infobox for every club in every country should display the club name as reflected in the title - so 'Birmingham City F.C.', 'Seattle Sounders FC' etc. etc. That level of consistence is neat and also matches standard infobox naming for non-football articles as well. GiantSnowman 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So the best thing would be to remove all entries in that field so its defaults to the article title? Crowsus (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side point, I was of the thinking (possibly wrong) that the Infobox header was the common name, for organisations as for people. So that would mean that no pre/suffixes would be used, although I realise that also creates problems (is it PSV or PSV Eindhoven, Schalke or Schalke 04, Brighton or Brighton & Hove Albion, Sporting or Sporting CP, etc). Crowsus (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a good idea to have it default to the article title as that sometimes includes additional disambiguation (e.g. Liverpool F.C. (Montevideo). Number 57 11:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You can strip the disambiguation with {{PAGENAMEBASE}}. You can check this by setting |clubname={{tl|PAGENAMEBASE}} in the infobox for Liverpool F.C. (Montevideo), which then gives Liverpool F.C. as the caption. This is available in the title object in a module.   Jts1882 | talk  11:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I said above that the infobox did this automatically if the clubname parameter was left blank. I could have sworn it used to, but it doesn't seem to now. Either my memory's worse than I thought it was, or it's been changed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you leave it blank you get no caption. If you remove the parameter, it defaults to the page title, e.g. Liverpool F.C., without the disambiguation.   Jts1882 | talk  12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Must have been what I was thinking of. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)