Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

Infobox image size for football articles

Is there a default image size for club article infobox images that goes is more specific that WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and H:INFOP? There’s an IP who seems to be changing lots of infobox images to 250px or 300px. Generally, infobox image is not fixed per se because the software will automatically size the image according to user preferences or the device they’re using. The default size, I believe, tends to be about 220px, but maybe it varies by infobox. If the image sizes need to be tweaked it might be better to scale them as needed instead of just fixing one size for all. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

200px seems to be the standard sizing for pictures in player's infoboxes (at least, if the picture ratio is around 2:3). For club infoboxes, instead, as logos tend to vary quite a bit (see Inter Milan, compared to Juventus F.C., compared to SK Brann), there is a bit more liberty towards the size. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs states: "preferred widths 75, 100, 150 or 200px depending on shape of badge". As long as the logo isn't too big (in my opinion, 250 and 300 is a bit too much), or too small, it should be fine. Using an "upright" parameter as you suggest is also another good option. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The 250px logos (see three examples in section below) are way too big. The logos don't need to be large as most don't have much detail and fair use of copyrighted logos would also suggest using the minimum size necessary to see the details. The football kit images are also often much bigger than necessary (e.g. [1]). The size when there are three shown side-by-side is adequate.   Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've found it best just to delete the size parameter and the logo then seems to default to an appropriate size for the infobox. Number 57 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach to follow. I think that most infoboxes being used these days have been set up to automatically size images in accordance with user preferences and the device being used; so, fixing the image to a set size seems to actually be preventing the software from doing what it’s supposed to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Whilst we're discussing this IP's edits

The rest of the IPs edits could do with a review as well. They seem to be entirely focussed on changes to club formation/reformation dates and the associated categories, sometimes removing long standing status quo from articles. eg: [2] [3] [4] Some have been reverted and the IP warned for unconstructive editing by @Wira rhea:. Gricehead (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely worth reviewing their edits. I've reverted several of them (some a couple of times) but in some cases it wasn't clear if they were right or not. Number 57 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

IP is now blocked for 31 hours by @Kosack:. Gricehead (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

IP has returned from block and has returned to exactly the same sort of edits. I posted on Kosack's talk page, but he seems to have gone offline just before, so does any other admin want to consider taking action? @Number 57:? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page in the hope of them engaging in discussion. They seem to be offline right now so any disruption is limited for now. Kosack (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

They've restarted in the same vein and failed to respond to Kosack's message. I've blocked them from editing in the mainspace for a week, which still enables them to respond to the message on their talk page. Number 57 11:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Now making (so far only one) similar edit(s) from IP 88.241.55.47. (edit to add:) Tried to report to AIV, but it was deleted before I could add any context. Gricehead (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just blocked them at that IP (88.241.55.47 (talk · contribs)) as they've continued in the same vein. Editors are welcome to ping me if more IPs need blocking. Cheers, Number 57 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Should "Indoor Soccer" be listed in a player's infobox

Eric Hassli played for several clubs in Europe and then several in MLS, and went to the North American second division for a year and played one match for an indoor soccer team before disappearing. All of the appearances have been placed in the infobox, but apparently, Indoor soccer != soccer. I hadn't heard that before. Should it be removed from the infobox or not? My assumption is that an infobox is a summary of the article so it makes sense to include, but if Hassli had retired to F1 or professional cycling, we wouldn't include it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude that information from the infobox, {{Infobox football biography}} can be used for all football variants, whether that be futsal (e.g. Falcão), beach soccer (e.g. Madjer) or indoor soccer (e.g. Slaviša Žungul). If a person has played different types of football, a parenthetical note can be used for distinguishing purposes. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - I've often seen it added as 'Club (indoor)' in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Several football-related pages are exceeding Wikipedia's technical limits causing templates to fail

The following football-related pages are exceeding Wikipedia's "template include size" is exceeded. These wind up in the "hidden" category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. As a result, templates near the bottom of these pages may not display properly. See the information at the top of the category page for technical details.

For most of these articles, the best fix is to split the article. Other fixes, such as reducing template use or removing non-encyclopedic information, are also worth considering. In some cases the best solution will be obvious and non-controversial and it could "just be done" by any editor familiar enough with the page to know it won't be controversial and who has time to do it. In other cases a talk-page discussion may be needed.

A copy of this list is at Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded#Article pages as of Feb. 21, 2020. A "live" list of all article pages affected by this issue, including non-football pages, is here (XML format, not wiki-format).

• 2010–11 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round
• 2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round
• 2015–16 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round
• List of Belgian football transfers summer 2016
• List of Chinese football transfers winter 2019
• List of Cypriot football transfers summer 2019
• List of Greek football transfers summer 2017
• List of Portuguese football transfers summer 2016
• List of Russian football transfers winter 2010–11
• List of U.S. Women's national soccer team matches
• List of Ukrainian football transfers summer 2019
• Spain women's national football team results
• Uzbekistan national football team head to head
• Yugoslavia national football team results Note: original now-trimmed page is Yugoslavia national football team results (1970–92)

If you would like to track this category and see pages as they reach this limit, "watchlist" the category and check the "category changes" check box in your Special:Watchlist filters (or make sure none of the filters under "Type of change" are selected). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

For the transfers' pages you can remove the flags of the domestic country and add a note that players/clubs without a flag are local. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been some good progress in just over a day. I have struck 8 items from the list that are no longer over the limit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blasted through them all except for Uzbekistan national football team head to head, which I believe should be deleted as an unnecessary confluence of Uzbekistan national football team results and Uzbekistan national football team all-time record. – PeeJay 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslavia mistakenly struck from list. Updated list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Post-split cleanup suggestions:

• Put a {{split article}} on all source and destination talk pages, for required attribution.
• Turn leftover redirect into either disambiguation pages like I did with Yugoslavia national football team results (also see its talk page) or
• Turn them into full fledged "highlights/summaries" pages like Serbia national football team results, which is a full article but it also links to sub-pages for 2006-09 and 2010-2019.
• Fix up any templates that listed the former pages. This has already been partly or complately done for at least one template, Template:Football results UEFA.
• Find and fix incoming links to the former pages, especially if the former page is a redirect or is a full-fledged article that is less relevant than the split-off one. It's not important if the former page will remain a redirect indefinitely. Special:WhatLinksHere is your friend.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Introducing Template:Clubplayerscat for players categories

Over at Special:WantedCategories we get a lot of categories of the form Category:(club) players etc needing creating but it's a bit time-consuming as you have to work out the various weird formats used by the parent categories (I'm looking at you, Category:Soccer players in Canada by team <g>), and check that the category matches the parent article and isn't just someone using an old sponsorship name etc. I've created a template to make that process easier, {{Clubplayerscat}} just needs a parameter to tell it what country the club is from - see eg Category:Hapoel Ramat Gan Givatayim F.C. players. At the moment it just works for (association) football players where the category name ends in a single word like "footballers" or "players", the long-term plan is to make it work with other sports too, and to do equivalent templates for managers, seasons etc. It needs a bit of polishing and formatting but for now it should be regarded as being in beta and in need of testing, if anyone wants to play with it. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

umm, can we un archive

The RfC we were discussing got archive, and why are we archiving so quickly? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was archived because no one commented on that section for a week. Seems reasonable to me. – PeeJay 11:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And yet it still needs an admin to close it. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it wouldn't have been archived if it had been properly marked as an RfC using {{rfc}}? I don't know exactly how the archiving bot works. – PeeJay 12:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed the positions by round table in the Championship has since been removed today as well as other divisions in the continent.

Therefore, on the 2019–20 FA WSL article, I have removed that due to the postponements having a long-term effect on how accurate the 13x23 table is (12 teams + 1 header)x(22 rounds + 1 column of team names). Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did ask twice on WP:AN about restoring and closing this, guess it's not happening. Feels like it's fallen on flat ears! I am more than happy to remove those tables, seems from what you said it's already been done. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

TT Pro League 2019

I want to find the topscorer in 2019 but I haven't managed to find the article. I ask the question : is there an 2019 TT Pro League? and the topscorer? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@FCNantes72: So first of all, the TT Pro League is currently ongoing with its 2019–20 season (here's the link on RSSSF), as federations are wont to do in the Caribbean they changed the league format once again! The article for the season doesn't yet exist, so I can't help you there, but here's the most recent update on scoring I could find. Jamal Creighton was the leading scorer as of the beginning of February, he isn't notable enough to have a Wiki article but here's his Soccerway profile. Hope this helps, Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@FCNantes72 and Keskkonnakaitse: If you're already on Soccerway, it's a click away to their top scorer list ;) --SuperJew (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew and Keskkonnakaitse:Thank you for yours answers. --FCNantes72 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Are Liguilla matches in Liga MX counted as normal regular season league matches?

I was updating stats of a player who plays in Liga MX other day, and I didnt added his stats from Liguilla matches in infobox where we usually add his league stats. I added his liguilla stats in 'other' category rather than 'league' category under career statistics section.

Someone deleted my edits since then, stating Liguilla matches are league matches and added those stats to regular season ones. Whats the right thing here? Doesnt Liguilla matches work like MLS playoffs or Ligue 1 relegation playoffs and have to be put under the 'other' category in a player's career stats? Kokoeist (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kokoeist: As far as I'm aware, Liguilla matches are considered to be league matches. The reasoning is "regular season" versus "postseason" – for example, the MLS Cup Playoffs are the "postseason elimination tournament of Major League Soccer]]", but the Liguilla is the "play-off phase of the [Liga MX] tournament." Same thing with relegation/promotion playoffs, those are considered to be postseason matches and not part of the regular season. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to my expectations, you are correct that Liga MX considers the Liguilla as the "final phase" of the tournament (see [5]) rather than a post-season play-off. It seems to me that treating Liguilla matches as "regular season" matches for infobox purposes is misleading because not all clubs qualify, and fewer advance in each successive round. This is unlike the Scottish Premier League which has distinct phases to its season, and similar to the Belgian Pro League's UEFA play-offs and other league's relegation/promotion play-offs. I guess as long as there is a proper footnote, either approach is fine, but my !vote is to treat Liguilla matches like other play-off matches rather than regular season matches. Jogurney (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that whatever rule is agreed here would also need to be applied to Brasil's Série C and Série D which both have knockout phases after group phases, and for which all phases have always been treated as "regular season" games by WP:RS such as Soccerway. Gricehead (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre Pato

Our Brazillian IP edit warring user is back again. Precaution: it may happen more often than three edits made so far. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And now this following edit. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_129#Alexandre_Pato for a suggested protection level should this continue. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Similar going on at Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991). Mattythewhite (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, reverting both of us with no reason as to why it was removed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for restructuring of Template:TwoLegResult

Current version

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Gent	2–4	Wolfsburg	2–3	0–1
Roma	0–4	Real Madrid	0–2	0–2
Paris Saint-Germain	4–2	Chelsea	2–1	2–1
Arsenal	1–5	Barcelona	0–2	1–3
Juventus	4–6	Bayern Munich	2–2	2–4 (a.e.t.)
PSV Eindhoven	0–0 (7–8 p)	Atlético Madrid	0–0	0–0 (a.e.t.)
Benfica	3–1	Zenit Saint Petersburg	1–0	2–1
Dynamo Kyiv	1–3	Manchester City	1–3	0–0

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Wolfsburg	2–3	Real Madrid	2–0	0–3
Bayern Munich	3–2	Benfica	1–0	2–2
Barcelona	2–3	Atlético Madrid	2–1	0–2
Paris Saint-Germain	2–3	Manchester City	2–2	0–1

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Manchester City	0–1	Real Madrid	0–0	0–1
Atlético Madrid	2–2 (a)	Bayern Munich	1–0	1–2

Proposed version

Team 1	1st leg	2nd leg	Team 2	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score
Gent	2–3	0–1	Wolfsburg	2–4
Roma	0–2	0–2	Real Madrid	0–4
Paris Saint-Germain	2–1	2–1	Chelsea	4–2
Arsenal	0–2	1–3	Barcelona	1–5
Juventus	2–2	2–4 aet	Bayern Munich	4–6
PSV Eindhoven	0–0	0–0 aet (7–8 p)	Atlético Madrid	0–0
Benfica	1–0	2–1	Zenit Saint Petersburg	3–1
Dynamo Kyiv	1–3	0–0	Manchester City	1–3

Team 1	1st leg	2nd leg	Team 2	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score
Wolfsburg	2–0	0–3	Real Madrid	2–3
Bayern Munich	1–0	2–2	Benfica	3–2
Barcelona	2–1	0–2	Atlético Madrid	2–3
Paris Saint-Germain	2–2	0–1	Manchester City	2–3

Team 1	1st leg	2nd leg	Team 2	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score
Manchester City	0–0	0–1	Real Madrid	0–1
Atlético Madrid	1–0	1–2	Bayern Munich	2–2 (a)

Rationale

I propose that the match results, and not the aggregate scores, should be stated first.

Two-legged ties are more often reported and remembered with the results of the individual legs than with the aggregate score. Advancement of teams is determined from the aggregate score, but is almost always immediately obvious from the two legs' scorelines – except perhaps when the tie is decided on away goals, but then the aggregate is a draw and does not contribute to obviousness anyways. There would still be a column stating the aggregates, and the advancing teams would still be bolded.

A drawback I can think of is that the table would become somewhat cluttered if a penalty shootout has to be indicated, or if a fixture has consisted of more than two legs – although in the latter case the aggregate goals might be irrelevant anyways if it's the number of wins that determines advancement (you can score fewer goals but win more times than the opponent over three or more games).

What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp on this one. Regards, Gricehead (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I see no reason to change it as it's good as it is. Kante4 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The important score is the aggregate result. I see no reason to change the format. – PeeJay 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - aggregates is what gets teams through not the first leg result on it's own. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose such a change, the aggregate score decides the tie, and the current design is clearest way to display this. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I feel like the aggregate score should be more noticeable first and with the current format, that is exactly what is shown here. HawkAussie (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also people are going to want to see the aggregate first as that is what decides the tie. The individual legs are basically extra information. WDM10 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the change, but I think the fact that the aggregate score is the important result is a reason for having it at the end of the row rather than buried^{(a slight exaggeration)} in the middle. It seems more natural to give the results of the matches and put the final result of the tie at the end of the row. Totals typically go at the end. It's just familiarity with the other approach that makes it seem strange. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

But familiarity is the important thing here. We should present results as people would expect to see them presented in a sporting publication, and that would usually be between the names of the two teams. – PeeJay 11:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As said above it's good as it is since the aggregate score is the important and deciding score, while the individual legs is extra information. Also as a side not, I'm not sure why for a small change like this it was necessary to show a full table... surely one or two games would be enough to get the idea? --SuperJew (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I prefer the current version, what was said about the aggregate score is important, your version seems to detract from that. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Cameron Carter-Vickers

Question, British English or America English on the player? Originally the whole article was in British English to begin with. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Born in the UK and spent his entire career there, so I would say it's a clear case for British English. However, the article was actually originally written in American English (although was created too soon, and he only became eligible for an article after making his Spurs debut). Number 57 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I might of been a little confused, because I remember setting the date to DMY on the article didn't think about the English until I saw Honours written in American as Honors. Is it okay to change to British English then or not? Govvy (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To be fair he has exclusively represented the US internationally, from 2014 to present. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I say British English. GiantSnowman 16:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say American English - his international representative nationality is the top nationality which should decide, same as on the Luton Town F.C. squad listing he's listed with an American flag. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Heh, that's a like a 50/50 between you guys between either British or American. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion if Dom Dwyer uses American English then so should Cameron Carter-Vickers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Dwyer is actually an American citizen, Vickers isn't. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that you could represent a NT without being its country's citizen. His father is American, so Cameron (should) be a US citizen. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes Vickers qualifies to play for the US team, however as far as I know he hasn't claimed citizenship. Technically he is British citizen who qualifies and plays for the US team. Govvy (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the player needs to be a US citizen in order to play for the US NT. In this document issued by FIFA, regarding Jerónimo Amione, they state that "[the player] is not entitled to request a change of Association due to the fact that [...] he did not yet hold Lebanese nationality." It's clear that holding the country's nationality is essential in order to represent its national team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry, but a pdf on Docdroid.com is completely unreliable, the pdf is blurred, unable to verify it's true source. there are some issues on that players article and I don't see the evidence for what you suggest. Govvy (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that he isn't an American citizen? He meets the requirements through his father, as well as qualifying as a British citizen through his mother. Spike 'em (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The PDF was uploaded by me, but the message itself is from FIFA. It's blurred as I have received the image through Whatsapp, and that person then received it from the Federation. Anyway, that's besides the point. FIFA states: "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country" (page 72) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship are two different things! :/ Govvy (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, ok. He's a full US national (and very likely a citizen). Can we agree that US English should be used? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems there is a distinction between US national and citizen (link), but it has very limited scope and doesn't apply to him as he gets nationality/citizenship from his father who is a citizen. So the reports saying he is a dual-national imply that he is a citizen, whether he holds a passport or not. However, I don't think this is relevant. Good cases can be made for using either American English, because he is a subject of interest to Americans (he plays for the national team), or British English, because he is a subject if interest to Britons (he was born and lived all his life here, and his football career is based at an English club). There doesn't seem a compelling reason to make a change from that which the article was originally written in. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes he is a national, but I disagree about being a citizen. Wikipedia is verification through citation, where is the verification. He still has to apply to be a nationalised citizen, where is the evidence for this? Unless there is absolute proof, then do not say he is a citizen of the US. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

All US citizens are also US nationals, and he has been a US citizen since birth via his father. You could equally say that there is no proof that he is a UK citizen. Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes all US citizens are US nationals. However the law is quite clear, you can't change that, he is a US national since birth, but because he was born outside of the US and hasn't lived there, he still has to apply and do the paperwork to be a citizen. Have I not made that clear? Govvy (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The US citizenship website says that a child born to a US parent overseas acquires citizenship at birth (rather than after submitting an application). They link to the statute which says: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:...(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person,was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years. If the article is correct about his parentage, then he has been a US citizen and national since birth. Spike 'em (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You want the out of wedlock one. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em and Govvy: How has this turned into a "is he a citizen or national?" discussion. The point is that he's eligible to play for the US national team (which he has). The question then is: as a US international player who was born and played his career in the UK, should his article be written with US or UK English? --SuperJew (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to leave that point aside. My view is that WP tends to use representative nationality as the overall decider of what the nationality of a person is for article content and hence he is a soccer player rather than a footballer. Without checking his personal document folder we can't tell if he has ever rescinded any possible nationalities / citizenships. It seems he has spent more time playing football in the UK, but that his playing for USMNT has led to more coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think my original question still stands, I just really get bugged out on some issues!! Probably the little bit of lawyer in me! I think everyone has a little bit of lawyer in them!! Govvy (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cyprus Cup or Cyprus Women's Cup? A question of naming?

Looking recently at the related articles, seems there are some cases where the tournament is named Cyprus Cup and in some cases Cyprus Women's Cup. What should it be named and should we move all the ones named otherwise to that name?

Cyprus Cup

Cyprus Cup, 2008 Cyprus Cup, 2009 Cyprus Cup, 2018 Cyprus Cup, {{International women's football}}

Cyprus Women's Cup

2010 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2011 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2012 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2013 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2014 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2015 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2016 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2017 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2019 Cyprus Women's Cup, 2020 Cyprus Women's Cup, Category:Cyprus Women's Cup, {{Cyprus Women's Cup}}, official site, RSSSF

Seems based on amount that it should be at Cyprus Women's Cup. But OTOH I'm not sure of the need for a gender qualifier if the men's tournament is at a different name, is less notable, and hasn't functioned since 2011. Thankful for your input, --SuperJew (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's unique, then it should use its unique formal name. If that includes "Women's" then articles should change to reflect because that's the unique formal name. If no other competition existed at "Cyprus Cup" then could just serve as a redirect to new article name. Koncorde (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I will go ahead and move all the Cyprus Cup mentions to Cyprus Women's Cup, as that seems to get more mention in media and also is the name on official site and social media. --SuperJew (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Kenny McDowall / Garry McDowall connection?

Does anyone have a reliable source for Garry McDowall being Kenny McDowall's brother. I've seen a matchday program that says they are but was hoping for another source. Hack (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a look. To be honest, if Hamilton are making that claim now, and have a document from the time in question to back it up, it's probably right, and (to me at least) is sufficient evidence to add to his article. The OZ Football ref you have on the article also confirms he was born in Scotland (and he's on this list, albeit not sourced individually) so it's all kind of adding up. I would say that's also enough to amend his status (i.e a Scot who moved to Australia) but I'll try to find better evidence for that too. Crowsus (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

According to this Partick Thistle wiki there is a third brother, called Paul. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Paul had a short stint in Australia and played alongside Garry in 1989.[6] Hack (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. had found this earlier, which says "Thistle striker Kenny McDowall faced his brother Paul for Accies". I just assumed Paul was a typo for Garry (and it wasn't great evidence as a RS to use as a ref for being Kenny's brother). But by the looks of it they meant Garry but added Paul by mistake. Would Paul's two appearances for Heidelberg make him eligible for an article? Or his time at Clyde in 1980s-era Scottish First Division? Crowsus (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First Division wasn't near being full-pro in the mid-1980s. e.g. 1987/88 had Meadowbank, Forfar, Queens, East Fife and Dumbarton in it. It became mostly full-pro from the mid-1990s onwards, e.g. St Johnstone won the First Division as a part-time club in 1989/90. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The National Soccer League was never fully professional so Paul fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I can't see any evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Bashundhara Kings season

I noticed this got recreated after it got delete via AfD in September last year. Don't know if it passes NSeasons or not. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Footballer who passes GNG but not NFOOTY?

Out of curiosity, what would be a practical example of a footballer who would pass WP:GNG, but not WP:NFOOTY? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say Sonny Pike – his transfer to Ajax at such a young age and subsequent failure to progress to professional football meant coverage over a sustained period. Number 57 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

IIRC Lauri Dalla Valle was notable per GNG long before he met NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Would someone like Hady Ghandour or Majed Osman be considered? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the article content I would say no. There are not multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject that deal with the subject in depth. Lists of stats and articles from organisations that they play for are not RS. Spike 'em (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that any player in their late teens or 20s that did not receive significant coverage when they were very young cannot be considered an exception to WP:NFOOTY at the current stage of their career – it will only be possible at some point in the future to see whether they had sustained coverage of their career even if they didn't make it professionally. Also, the level of references used for the Majed Osman draft could be found for thousands of non-league players and I think we can all agree that we would not wish to open that particular can of worms. Number 57 22:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I figured the situation to be like this. Just wanted to double check. (Also, Osman just joined a pro league so he shouldn't be a concern, this inquiry was more directed towards Ghandour who's 20). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499 there are quite a few Republic of Ireland league players who fail NFooty but pass GNG. Maybe you want to have a look there. Govvy (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls.

Just a reminded to people to not feed the trolls! Govvy (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just seen this page with all the troll edits made, I'd noticed they have used our signatures as fakes which never works. SineBot or the page history will tell us we did not do the posting. I was shattered that my signature was used in the troll posts but of course the actual users/IP addresses are indeed the "hungry" trolls. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ#Dan arndt rejected my article

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ#Dan arndt rejected my article. Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from FOOTY could take a look at this and assess the FC in question per WP:NTEAM. It could be just a general misunderstanding, or the club might not be notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The club competes in a league where its clubs play in the domestic cup competition. Therefore, in theory, the club should be notable per WP:FOOTYN (if its participation in the cup can be referenced). Obviously the draft (Draft:Kelmscott Roos Soccer Club) would need a lot more work than what is currently being nominated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For Australian clubs, a more useful gauge of notability is whether the team has played in the top state league. Hack (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of teams by region - To be kept or not

So Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs) reverted my edits on the basis that their was no consensus to remove it. I would decline as the region section of the article is just basically WP:NOTSTATS/WP:OR as it's not referenced in anyway shape or form. HawkAussie (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

On this one I'm with you, I think the section is trivial and a waste of space contrary to the position by round table which is relevant. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR that each of those team's is associated with a city which are located in one of 20 regions in Italy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs) And what's your point? Doesn't make more relevant to me.RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee, the section should be kept. The fact that a team is part of a region isn't OR, it's a fact. I'm not sure to which article you are specifically referring to but, as for the 2019–20 Serie A season, there are plenty of sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3...) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Those later ones might have those references but I am also talking about the early 21st century seasons from probably the 2000s. HawkAussie (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted that section again as it's completely irrelevant to the encyclopaedia. What difference does it make how many teams are from each region? – PeeJay 05:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I like to address 2 aspects.

1. The habit of some to delete data of others which sometimes is already there for years, just like that. It displays a total disrespect for the work of others. In the Guide to deletion the following is mentioned: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Of course, this is the guide for full pages and I don't think this applies as well when deleting a single line or so. But when deleting full sections or tables, not recently added, I feel it would be equally civil to notify people of your intentions. Just deleting the data, all too often results in reverts and people getting pissed. The next step often is that the matter is taken here. However, it's done without informing the people who have been reverting. Again, when taking a matter here it would be civil if you inform those who disagree with you. (In this specific case it seems the person who has been reverting found out anyway). It happens too often that a select few, hardly doing any of the the daily/weekly updates, decide on a matter without the people who do the regular updates knowing about it. And then they even dare to call it consensus.
2. The actual issue. WP:OR is used, based on the lack of references, as an argument to delete the data. If that would be a valid argument, we probably should start deleting a lot of city pages. Let us look at Munich, the first line says "Munich is the capital and most populous city of Bavaria". I don't see a reference that Munich is actually located in Bavaria. Or let us look at Barcelona where the first line says "Barcelona is a city on the coast of northeastern Spain. It is the capital and largest city of the autonomous community of Catalonia". Neither do I see a reference that Barcelona is actually located in Catalonia. Who's going to start the proposal to delete all the city pages which have no reference showing the city is actually located where the page says it's located? As well WP:NOTSTATS is used as argument. So something has to be a STAT to be listed? In that case, let us delete e.g. all "teams" and "results" sections. Neither of the two are STATS but just facts. I must say lovely arguments are used. Or could it be that just any potential rule to delete something, is brought up no matter whether it applies or realizing the impact it would have on other sections/aricles? Does that mean I feel the "teams by region" tables should stay? No, I don't, for the simple reason that these league pages don't describe a regional event/competition. It's nice to know info, however not relevant in the context of the subject of the page. What's next, a table with the number of players with green/blue/brown/grey/red eyes? Also nice to know info, but as well not relevant in the context of the page. Does that mean I think the info should be deleted if most in here say it should. No, I don't, that is as long as not all main contributors to league pages have been informed about this issue being discussed. A (new) consensus is not created by a few "secretly" discussing an issue without a lot of people not knowing about it.

--Sb008 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right, neither WP:OR or WP:NOTSTATS are factors here. As you've pointed out, it's simply not encyclopaedically relevant. – PeeJay 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Regionalism is a thing in Italy. It's more relevant to know, for a specific season, how many teams from the south are participating, for example. While it may not be that relevant in other countries, in Italy regions are not something to be overlooked. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how important regionalism is to Italians. What I do know however is that IT-Wiki doesn't have a "teams by region" table on e.g. the Serie A 2019-2020 page. Sure makes me wonder if they comsider regionalism that important? --Sb008 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What article are we actually discussing here.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Any Serie A season article (e.g. 2019–20 Serie A). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think having a separate section for "number of teams per region" gives it more importance than anyone thinks it has, and is definitely overkill. How about just adding a "region" column to the sortable table in the teams section at the beginning of the article? Also as a sidenote to think about (though not a compelling reason in either direction) - both the MLS and the A-League, leagues in countries which are very clear about the division into states/territories, don't have any mention of the home state of each team, especially not a section just for that. --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, isn't the map sufficient? Or the home cities column in the table could add the region. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I don't think the map is sufficient for this information. A native Italian or someone invested in the area might be able to tell the regions from the map, but the layperson, such as myself, would be hard put by such a task. --SuperJew (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My thinking was that someone interested in the clubs in a region would be already familiar with the regions. Anyway, a consensus for a separate sortable column seems to be forming below. This should satisfy those who want to include the information and those who think it shouldn't get undue prominence. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget there are at least a couple of people above who don't think it's relevant at all. – PeeJay 15:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we could add the region to the table, be it between brackets next to the city or, more ideally, in a separate sortable column. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent on the matter of these tables, just wanted a consensus to be had before mass removal which may see these tables sporadically return and cause inconsistency between season articles. It looks like the consensus is developing for non-inclusion, which is fine, so if it stays like this feel free to revert me after a few days. If regions were to be added to the existing table I'd go for a separate column as I believe in Italy they would refer to the province in brackets, not the region. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO adding a region column to the team table would be a better solution, as this provides the information without taking up much space or giving undue importance to the region, as a separate table would imply. Crowsus (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But no one has yet established that the information is even required. All we have are personal accounts that regionalism is apparently very important to Italians, and even if we could substantiate those, I still don't see how it's encyclopaedically relevant to a wider audience. The region a team comes from doesn't have any impact on the final standings or which teams qualify for which other competitions, so why does it even need to be mentioned at all? – PeeJay 15:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For the same principle, why do we need a map showing the locations of the clubs, or a table showing the stadiums and cities of the clubs? Btw, never said that "regionalism is very important", just that it's a relevant topic in Italy. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question from earlier, why if it's relevant, on IT-Wiki there's no "teams by region" table. See e.g. the Serie A 2019-2020 page. As far as your question, why a map, stadiuns and cities, a very valid question. It addresses in a way my biggest problem with this so called football project. I addressed this already earlier, no where there's a proper definition of what e.g. a league season page should look like. What are the do's and dont's and what are the arguments that lead to this. That's what a project should do, define a motivated framework. Instead I see the same discussions repeated over and over, like a bunch of house wives quarreling repeatedly about how long to boil an egg. --Sb008 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a paragraph listing such regions. "Le regioni più rappresentate sono l'Emilia-Romagna (Bologna, Parma, Sassuolo e SPAL) e la Lombardia (Atalanta, Brescia, Inter e Milan) con quattro squadre ciascuna..." Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I see, guess next time I should be less lazy and study the page a bit closer. --Sb008 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha Sb008 your metaphor is wonderful 🤣 --SuperJew (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My final remark on this subject. Even tho I agree on removing these kind of tables from pages, I certainly do not agree with the methods used by the initiator of this topic. While we're having this discussion he continues removing these kind of tables from pages. The final outcome of this discussion apparently isn't relevant to him. His mind is set on removing, so he removes. As far as I'm concerned it expresses a total disrespect for the work and opinion of other editors. --Sb008 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

So are we going to have a vote or we just go ahead and keep it. HawkAussie (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A vote, i guess... Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Bronze UEFA Championship

Why on the pages of some players and national teams in medals are indicated the “bronze of the European Championship” (not including Euro 2008 and 2012), because as far as I heard, the losers were not handed over to the semi-finalists David Cok 121 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Between 1960 and 1980, there was a third-place play-off so someone did finish third. In 1984 the third-place match was scrapped and it hasn't been played or awarded since. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. In 2008 and 2012, bronze medals were indeed awarded to the players of both losing semi-finalists. – PeeJay 09:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple playing positions in infobox

Quick question, how should we display multiple positions in the infobox?

1. Striker, Attacking midfielder
2. Striker, attacking midfielder
3. Striker / Attacking midfielder
4. Striker / attacking midfielder
5. Striker
   Attacking midfielder

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I do (3) but that's not necessarily correct. I'll try to change any I remember doing if the consensus is for another way. Crowsus (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I use #5, but again, that might also not necessarily be the right way to do it. However, I prefer it as it makes each position more explicitly separate from the others. – PeeJay 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I use 2 but don't mind 5. Though to open Pandora's box how should we order them ie 'striker' first or 'attacking midfielder' first? How many positions do we include? etc GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I think common sense is needed here. If out of 30 games a player has played 22 as a striker and 8 as a CAM, then both are displayed and striker takes the precedence. Also, if all the roles he plays in are part of the same "macrocategory" (defender, midfielder, forward), then display that and not the single positions (e.g. centre-back, left-back --> just defender). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of listing all the position a player plays, I always feel it should be the first and primary roll that player plays in the squad. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, playing over a quarter of the games in a certain position isn't trivial. Also, lots of players are a lot more flexible in their roles, playing different roles in the same game. Some also play, for example, as a CB for the NT and as a CDM at club level. Juan Cuadrado for example, has played as a RB, RWB, RM, and RW equally throughout his career: none of those really takes the precedence over the other. Obviously if a CB has once played as a CDM before due to injuries in the team, putting CDM in the positions would be forced. I think this should be evaluated case-by-case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to the main issue, is it possible to make a vote? Or is it something too trivial that whatever formatting we use is just as good? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Options 3 and 4 are ruled out by WP:Slash. Regarding option 1 I don't see why "attacking" should be capitalised. So, agreeing with GS, it's 2 or 5 for me. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good points. I guess we could use 2 by default, and 5 if the wording becomes too long (e.g. Attacking midfielder, right winger) as to make it work on mobile devices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus, PeeJay2K3, GiantSnowman, Govvy, and Robby.is.on: do you all agree? Can we put this into Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. GiantSnowman 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know about the slash rule, so with that ruled out, definitely agree. Crowsus (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

tag-adding problem

Hello, I've been adding different Football tags to players talk pages without any problem untill I tried to add "|Norway=yes" to a player. When I tried that I got an "unknown parameter" warning in preview. There is a WikiProject Football/Norway task force which urges editors to add that exact tag. I don't know how active that task force is, so I decided to leave this info here. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

De Rossi

Hi. Please keep an eye on Daniele De Rossi. Complete synthesis of material by IPs for an "unofficial" title awarded by Boca Juniors fans for De Rossi even after his retirement months ago. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Daniele De Rossi#Boca title? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bobly and match results

Bobly (talk · contribs) has been changing scores of old matches. Some, like this are right next to a reference that shows the modified result is entirely wrong. However most are like this where the reference is buried in a table and the old score was correct, but the other scorers in the table are wrong. Regardless, it's hard to wade through that table. Does anyone have the will to clean up this editor's mess? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've also seen a number of edits from this user which I had to clean up. They seem to be checking the matches on a large number of articles for mistakes. However, most of the mistakes in articles are with the goalscorers, but instead of checking the external report they change the scoreline. I've also seen them adding seemingly random goal minutes in some edits when it is missing from the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of titles in brackets for player honours section

I would like to invite everyone to express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#Numbers in brackets?. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone who hasn't yet voted to so please? It's just a simple yes/no. At least we can put a stone over the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You do know it's a consensus and not a vote, right? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but considering that this is a black and white situation, there aren't any gray areas. Either we put them or we don't. It's not like we can find a compromise. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, you're right. It's best if one justified his decision (not just simply yes/no). Obviously we wouldn't chose based on the number of votes, but on the most reasonable explanation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ADMIN HELP

Please an admin temporarily protect Daniele Rugani who's article has been bombarded with vandalism amid the news that he tested positive for COVID-19. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Done at WP:AN. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Precaution

A *new* account has been created with the two edits so far was to revert changes by 2804:D55:15:B6D9:0:0:0:1 on the two articles Hernanes and Alexandre Pato. There may be more edit warring going on here but I'm not certain if the *new* account is one of the sock puppets or not at this time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And they're at it again with these two articles that I'd mentioned above, I've also spotted the same between Clocksface and PeeJay2K3 on Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994) with no discussion on Talk:Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Runner-up titles in player honours section

Hi, could you please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#Runner-up titles? It would be greatly appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Signed to first team and playing on the second team

If a player is signed to the club's first team but plays on the second team, is it a loan to the second team or not? An editor seems to claim it's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a loan per se. I would indicate it in the infobox with the arrow (→) as if it were a loan, but removing the text (on loan) next to the club's name. See Wesley, for example, who plays for Juventus U23 but has also been called up to Juventus' first team on the bench on a few occasions. I think we should just indicate the second team in the infobox, and both (with arrow to second team) if the player was also called up to a match for the first team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If a player spends the season only with the second team then only display the second team in the infobox. GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If the → is to be added in these circumstances, it will need to go in every infobox for any player who has played for a B/II/Jong team, which in France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Germany is a lot. Crowsus (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It would have to go in the infoboxes of player who have ALSO at least been called up to the main team. If an Ajax Jong player has never even been on the bench of Ajax, then he shouldn't have the →, and just the reserve team should be displayed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a loan. He just plays for the second team which happens everywhere at everytime. Kante4 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking specifically about countries where reserve teams play in the "main" league system? In countries like England where reserve teams have their own wholly separate leagues and players move in and out of the reserves all the time, the reserve team should absolutely NOT be shown in the infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is for clubs in the same league pyramid (e.g. Juventus F.C. Under-23 and FC Barcelona B). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Crowsus/Kante: in general, it's not a loan, it's just a player playing for their club's second team. In a lot of European league systems, they do, and it's never been treated as a loan. I don't know enough about the US league/registration system to comment about Walter's specific question. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a loan, but in the infobox we should still put the arrow (→), without the text "(on loan)". This is because, let's say a Juventus U23 player then moves on loan to AC Monza. He isn't on loan from Juventus U23, but from Juventus. Therefore he should have

Juventus 0 (0)

→ Juventus U23 10 (2)

→ Monza (on loan) 0 (0)

Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In Spain the football structure is filled with reserve teams, every professional team has one or some kind of a farm team/affiliation. They are assigned to these reserve/farm clubs, but can play for the first team, so that's definitely not a loan, because when loaned, the player can't play for his parent club (obviously). My only question is regarding this loan sign. Is this really necessary? MYS77 ^✉ 15:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's not a loan. And it's not a loan sign, because for loans you would specifically have "(on loan)". The arrow is necessary for the situation I explained above. Also, this would only be shown in two cases:

1. A player who plays for a reserve team is sent on loan to another team: display in the way I showed above
2. A player who plays for a reserve team was called up to the parent team for a match (even just sitting on the bench). If the player just played for the reserve team, and has never even been called up to the first team, then don't display the parent club and don't put the arrow

A compromise could be to write (reserve), in the same way we write (on loan). But I don't think it's necessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Going back to Walter's original question, Will Bruin should absolutely be listed as having been on loan. Here's a news release from the Sounders just two days ago; in the United States and Canada, because of the franchise system, players are officially sent on loan to those second teams. I would argue the exact opposite in basically the rest of the world, but in the US this is definitively a loan. To get entirely too specific with it, let's use Tacoma Defiance as an example. They are a franchise in the USL Championship, owned by Seattle Sounders FC (80%) and the nonprofit Sounders Community Trust (20%). Because of this, any single player has their contract owned by one of those clubs, and can be sent on loan to the other. In the case of Will Bruin, he is under contract with Sounders FC, but was sent on loan to Tacoma. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Keskkonnakaitse: But the question is, in the US specifically, can these players play for their parent clubs while on loan? MYS77 ^✉ 16:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@MYS77: Copied from the official MLS roster rules, comes this section about "Loan of a Player by MLS to USL Affiliate":

• All loans from MLS clubs to USL affiliates must be free (i.e., no loan fees paid by USL affiliate clubs).
• If an MLS player is loaned to a USL affiliate, such a player may not be paid more than the player's Salary Budget Charge without that compensation being captured on the MLS club's Salary Budget (including, but not limited to, performance bonus compensation).
• An MLS club can receive roster relief and budget relief for a maximum of one player loaned to its USL affiliate or a lower-division club in the U.S. or Canada; provided, however, that:
  • The player is under the age of 25 (i.e., he does not turn 25 prior to the end of the calendar year);
  • The player's Salary Budget Charge is less than or equal to the MLS Senior Minimum Salary (including any loan fees, transfer fees, agent fees, housing, car, etc.); and
  • The loan must be a season-long free loan; and
  • The MLS club may not utilize a right to recall over the player during the remainder of the MLS League Season; provided, however, that such a player may be recalled to his MLS club in the case of Extreme Hardship.

The player can play for the parent club if a "right to recall" is included in the loan deal. In that case, the player is recalled from their loan in order to play for the parent club, subject to roster space. They are then sent back on loan in order to play for the affiliate again. I don't think in the rest of the world that a player playing for a reserve team (Juventus U23, Barcelona B, etc.) would be considered a loan, but it's literally in the MLS rules that such a move is considered a loan. On a side note, those roster rules are fascinating to read through, if only to get a glimpse of how insane the sport is here in the States. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Farrell (footballer, born 1937)

I came across Tommy Farrell's article did a bit of cleanup, however I am unable to access the Irish Times subscription, I was wondering if anyone had access to that and able to update the refs. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit of a hole here...

2018 Ghanaian Premier League has only partial information, which is not unusual for a season for a small nation like Ghana, but the actual hole is the line "Last updated 6 June 2018 (championship suspended following government directive)." There is no explanation or reference to support this. When I search, I see that FIFA fined and temporarily banned Kwesi Nyantakyi, the nation's FA president, but I'm not sure how that would affect the Premier League. The next piece of news is that by October 25, they were looking for a new president, but again, no mention of the league. It seems to have caused an exodus of players as one went to Israel and has found himself at my club as of January of this year. That is the only reason I show any interest here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Soccerway also seems to confirm the partial table. RSSSF states: "competition abandoned following corruption scandal within GFA" and "championship suspended following government directive to that effect". I'm guessing that no champion was announced and the season is to be considered cancelled. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hradecky brothers

Three brothers - Lukáš Hrádecký, Tomas Hradecký and Matej Hradecky. You will note the issue with diacritics in their surnames. We need consistency. Any suggestions what we should use? GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well considering Lukáš Hrádecký is the oldest brother and that article is the best source kinda suggests that Hrádecký is the correct surname. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability of an indoor soccer team

I'd rather not take Wichita Wings (2019) to AfD, but it appears as though it's not clear if Major Arena Soccer League 2 is a fully professional league, but it will not play for for any national cup. The coverage is both PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE. Comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] – here's the best coverage I could find on the team. I don't think that they're notable, but we also don't appear to have any guidance on indoor leagues at WP:FPL. I guess it would come down to WP:GNG since there's no national cup competition in arena soccer in the US. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Early prediction

How many of you do you think the English football seasons are going to run overtime e.g. the 2019–20 Premier League and 2019–20 FA WSL having matches played later than 17 May 2020. I have noticed a lot of editing going on the 2019–20 Premier League page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes by gut feeling. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this will be anything other than Yes. The question is more will they go beyond 30 June. I wouldn't want to be trying to write new contract law on the fly. Gricehead (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are trying to guess what will happen. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit like the second world war (1939–40 in English football had been suspended) but in this case, there are no bombs but a pandemic. This situation will not be as serious as the world war as the season progressed more than the fourth game. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended reason on the yes "vote" on the Early prediction section

Re the section "Early prediction" on this page, I'd certainly say as things stand that cancelling matches is unfair.

By archiving the 2020–21 in English football page today (because the templates change without article edits), it is shown that only three teams out of 92 have their places confirmed in their division (all in the Premier League), likewise in the 2020–21 FA WSL.

In the fair case, the Bolton v Brentford fixture last season, they declared a 1–0 away win but doing this to random teams over a large amount of postponed matches would promote and relegate teams unfairly.

Rearranging all these P–P matches in this division and the Match of the Day division is probably difficult to slot in before the 16 and 17 May 2020 respectively given the windy weather, waterlogged pitches and the domestic cups the reasons why.

It is probably good to see Manchester United W.F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Women survive relegation (seems more likely than not and inevitably at least one will) and promote and relegate teams by match performances around England and Scotland but cancelling matches is not good at this stage.

That's my feeling on the seasons to be extended which delays the play-offs and possibly the start of the new seasons.

Thanks for reading, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Ray Wilkins

I've reverted this a few times, ([14]) I can't remember the policy, pretty sure you're not suppose to have nicknames in the name like that, anyway, can someone else deal with this guy. Govvy (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the "Butch" should be in there either as some sources do not mention the name. "Butch Wilkins" gives 766k results while "Ray Wilkins" gives 32.7m results though there are more than one of that name. The page history never uses the bold "Butch" at the top of the page so should say the nickname would not be viewed here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at MOS:NICKNAME. Ones used as a commonname can be included within 'unbolded' quotes; in this instance do not feel it should be included... don't think I've seen or heard him referred to as 'Butch' since about 1978! Eagleash (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. For someone where they're genuinely primarily known by the nickname (Nobby Stiles, Cafu, Jay-Jay Okocha...) it's reasonable, but Wilkins hasn't been called "Butch" other than by radio hosts trying to sound matey for about 30 years. ‑ Iridescent 23:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of John Barnes being known as "Digger", or Darren Anderton being known as "Shaggy". It's an occasional nickname used by those in the know. There are few English players that have ever really gone by another name through their career to such an extent it becomes part and parcel of their playing career (and by nickname I am excluding contractions of their last name such as "Becks"). Chopper Harris and Nobby Stiles are two such rare ones. "Psycho" may be one for Stu Pearce, but rarely was it used formally outside of the red-tops. Koncorde (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So players like Soony Saad are ok, right? Given that he is exponentially more known as "Soony" than "Hassan Ali". Is the notation in the page correct, or should the quotes be unbolded? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Even Nobby Stiles is simply a diminutive form of his first name (Norbert). It's not a nickname per se, it's no different to a man called Robert being known as Bobby -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

John Barnes (footballer) is the right link as there are plenty of people on Wikipedia with the same name. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Eagleash, I have to try and remember that Mos shortcut for next time. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes Saad should have the quotes outside the bold ( Done). Barnes is disambiguation and is correct but not the same thing as the boldname. Eagleash (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced addition

Hi everyone. For a while now, 79.66.66.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very busy adding unsourced data to articles, most frequently it's caps and goals numbers in the infobox. I have been reverting a whole bunch of offending edits but I've run out of steam. Anyone in the mood for checking some more of the changes? Perhaps the editor could also do with a block as a wake-up call. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Brazilian players' infobox

Should we really leave 0/0 to a Brazilian player's infobox when he played for some team who only appeared in a state league during the whole period?

Example 1: "Player 1" played for "Team 1" between 2015 and 2016. In that time, "Team 1" only played in the Campeonato Mineiro but never appeared in a national division. Leaving 0/0 in the infobox would be misleading? I think so.

Example 2: "Player 1" played for "Team 2" between 2017 and 2018. In that time, "Team 2" played in the Campeonato Mineiro in 2017 and 2018, but also appeared in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série D in 2018. So, we should update the infobox accordingly to his appearances in the Série D, right?

I had a small chat with @Gricehead and I honestly don't know whether this approach is 100% right or wrong, because infobox should reflect league appearances only. But isn't a state league some form of a league after all? And if it isn't, shouldn't we oblige all Brazilian players to have a "Career statistics" section to reflect the stats correctly? MYS77 ^✉ 19:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to @MYS77: for raising this here. I have no strong feelings either way, and am happy to comply with consensus. I raised it with MYS77 only because he's the first user I've noticed changing an player article on my watchlist to add state league appearances. I've been following the "national leagues only in infobox" approach for about the last two to three years, although when I first started editing Brazilian player articles on players in Category:Treze Futebol Clube players I didn't, and there are probably still some examples in there where I have added Campeonato Paraibano appearances in the infobox. Therefore, at some point I was steered by something to change my editing approach. I can only assume that was here, as I don't recall having debates on any particular user talk page regarding the matter. However, I've been unable to find any evidence via searching the talk archives. Gricehead (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we should exclude appearances in state leagues. In the early 20th century in England clubs often played in two leagues at the same time. Number 57 13:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Note also that the footnote in the infobox says appearances are for the "domestic league" not "national league". It may well be worth adding a footnote to the stats for Brazilian players making it clear that both state and national leagues are included, for absolute clarity..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all suggestions here by @Number 57 and @ChrisTheDude, so should we create some kind of an if in the infobox to include a different type of footnote in the infobox for Brazilian players, and then start to count their state league apps/goals in the infobox stats? Because I think there was some previous agreement for a "State League" column in the "career statistics" chart, and by doing so in the infobox, these Brazilian players would be more covered in information, IMO.

What's your input in this, @GiantSnowman, @Mattythewhite, @Struway2, @Kante4? MYS77 ^✉ 15:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. GiantSnowman 19:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe we should add something in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players to clarify this? I mean, this will cause confusion in some users for some time, because we are basically changing the consensus now. MYS77 ^✉ 19:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with the above (Input was required ;)). It's a bit tricky with Brazilian leagues but the idea sounds good. Kante4 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Added those conditions previously agreed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. Feel free to edit/adjust as you all like :) MYS77 ^✉ 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sarpreet Singh question

He appears to be signed to Bayern Munich's second team, but has played several friendlies and eight minutes in the Bundesliga for the first team. Currently there's a debate whether the first team should be listed first in the infobox and the second second, or the other way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion: first team first, second team below with the arrow to its left (no "(on loan)" text to the right though). See Wesley (footballer, born 2000), for example. The reasoning behind this is the fact that second teams don't technically buy players, they just receive them from the first team. Any Juventus Under-23 player is actually officially bought by Juventus. The parent team (Juventus / Bayern Munich / etc.) should be only listed if the player was at least on the bench for them. Otherwise, just display the reserve team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme's reasoning. It looks absurd for him to be 'on loan' from the second team to the first team. Number 57 01:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. He's owned by Bayern Munich, not Bayern Munich II. WDM10 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this (→) being applied but just want to check this discussion is sufficient for consensus to amend all relevant infoboxes to include it? I don't see any real difference between Bayern Munich II and Barcelona B so it should be going on there too. However I think with the previous discussion on this a few entries above this one, it was stated that the player should have only the reserve/B/II team listed if they had never played for the first/A team. Therefore, to display one team with a → beside its name but no explanation of what that means might cause confusion for the casual reader. Therefore, surely all B/II players should have the parent team added above in the box, since (as stated above) they are employed by the parent, even when there have been many instances where there is no intention of the player ever featuring for the A team. Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta is an exampl: it would be fairly obvious from additional →s that he was 'borrowed' by Basconia and Bilbao Athletic while contracted to Athletic Bilbao if the row for parent entry was moved up above the subsidiaries, but less obvious for his Barça B spell without Barcelona being added above as the 'borrowed from' entity. There is also the question of chronology, with Singh and Galarreta their B Team and A team league debuts were more or less at the same time, but in many cases the player would spend 2 or 3 years with the Bs before debuting for the As. So there would either be an issue with the order (A team appears first but debut was later), or with presentation for quick reference if we show the As spell as beginning at the same time as being 'borrowed' to play for the Bs, I know we do this for standard loans but it's not perfect either, and to me it would be either misleading to show Kepa Arrizabalaga as having a 2011 (the year he started playing for the Athletic Bilbao C team) start date with Athletic A team, or visually jarring to have the Athletic 2016 spell listed before the C (Basconia) and B (Bilbao Ath) spells which would be preferable from a borrowing hierarchy point of view, or ambiguous for readers to leave the order as it is in his article just now but add arrows to the C and B spells, with the A spell already separated from them by external loans. However, one of the three should be implemented if the method for Sarpreet Singh is to be repeated across the nations using these systems. Hope this makes sense and someone can advise. Crowsus (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I would have no problem with adding the parent club, with the initial year coinciding with the initial year of the B team, above the B team (exactly the same way we do for loaned out players). The B team would have the →, without (loan) to the right. I don't think it's too misleading, as often times players from a team (say Juventus) begin their senior career loaned out to clubs for several years. See Leonardo Spinazzola who has 2012–2019 for Juventus, when in reality he spent the years between 2012 and 2018 on loan elsewhere, before actually debuting for Juventus in the 2018–19 season. The same logic should apply to reserve teams: any player who plays for Juventus Under-23 is officially a Juventus player (same for Barcelona B or Bayern II), regardless of when he actually played for the parent club (if he even did).

If this seems to extreme, then we could decide to only put the parent team when the player has at least sat on their bench during a match (with the same timeframe logic as explained above). In the case the player has never even been called up for the senior team, then we could just display the B team without any arrows.

Both options are fine by me. Obviously you are right in the sense that we should form some sort of consensus, with more people participating in the discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1978 FA Cup Final

Hello folks. I'm midway through a WP:GAN for the above and the reviewer has asked a good question: why did Arsenal play in yellow (and blue!) that day rather than just stick to their normal home strip of red and white? Anyone with good answers and reliable sources will be suitably rewarded... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No reliable source, but it may have been a superstitious thing. They'd won their last two cup finals in yellow and lost their last two in red (the last one they won in red was pre-WW2), so I imagine that was it. – PeeJay 11:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, this site suggests that it was simply Arsenal's practice at the time not to wear their red kits when they weren't playing at the Library. – PeeJay 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And finally, this site says there was indeed a clash between the first-choice white shorts of both teams; Arsenal could have changed to red shorts, but instead they opted to change their entire kit rather than wear a bizarre combination of red shorts and red shirts. – PeeJay 11:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Marvellous, thanks for all that. Do we consider those two RS by the way? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2021

I think one of the admins need to review this move, maybe reset it back, it seems totally inappropriate considering there are no sources for a name change. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, keeping as it's current title should be as it is rather than the new 2021 title. And only admins can move the page to prevent further malicious moves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's the plan! heh, my watchlist did look horrendous earlier today!! Govvy (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone had been changing it's name of the competition e.g. this edit where it was known as "UEFA Euro 2020 qualification" when qualification was completed barring the play-offs which the matches have not taken place. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2021 Copa América

The 2020 Copa América page has been moved to 2021 Copa América. If this is correct, a fair bit of work is needed to update the article. Hack (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought the same with UEFA Euro 2021. Just because it's been moved by a year doesn't mean the name will change, it's still officially Euro 2020. Until UEFA or independent reliable sources start calling it Euro 2021, I don't think the page should be moved. There's nothing to say it won't be referred to as Euro 2020 next year. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments on the Euro talk page, it would be stupid to call it the 2020 tournament if it's in 2021. But that's not for us to decide. If you want to give your tournament (or yourself) a stupid name, and that's the name used in reliable sources, the article title should reflect that. Smartyllama (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the significance of bolded team names?

What is the significance of bolded team names in articles such as 2012–13 FA Cup? It appears to be applied inconsistently, even within a single page, or perhaps only home teams that win are bolded (but why would that be?). I was unable to find any explanation in the article, or at {{footballbox collapsible}}, or at any of the Footy MOS pages. Thanks for any explanation you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It was done by User:Martinklavier, so perhaps he can explain. Number 57 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I dont know, the edit was done to provide some consistency for FA Cup articles, as the latest ones mark bold the winning teams.Martinklavier (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that later FA Cup articles have winners in bold (until the semi-finals, when both teams are bold), but 2012–13 FA Cup is inconsistent, and most of the bold tags are not closed. Would you be willing to go through the article and fix the bold tags by applying bold formatting to the remaining losers and closing all of the existing tags? 2011–12 FA Cup has the same problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Football Box does not allow you to remove the bolding but the collapsible version does. At one time, the collapsible version allowed you to remove it without closing the bold tags. I forget exactly when, but it stopped doing that and that's likely the problem with this article (and many other cup articles, I imagine). Closing the bold tags is the only option. Equineducklings (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Stevie fae Scotland for fixing 2012–13 FA Cup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Importance scale

We rating each article's class in football project, but I was curious and asking how many editors use or consider the other part of importance. I mean, we have Top, High, Mid, and Low. But somehow World Cup articles we are not even adding to Top, and for some reason we are rating Euro 2020 at Mid! Are people really interested in using this feature? Govvy (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale. GiantSnowman 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an argument that each individual world cup/Euros should sit at high importance, but not too, as you don't need to know about it to understand football as a whole. However, the FIFA World Cup article should be top importance, as it is important towards the knowledge of the game itself. I quite often look through these on other projects looking for important articles that are of poor quality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you ask me the scale, or at least the way it's used, is totally flawed.

1. For some reason the 2019–20 Premier League is of mid importance, but the 2019–20 La Liga is only of low importance. What makes it even stranger, is that 2019–20 Swiss Super League is of mid importance as well.
2. What's the use of the importance scale anyway. The average reader doesn't know how a page is rated on the importance scale anyway and I doubt a page gets more editor attention if the rating is higher. Editors edit a specific page because they interested in the subject and not because it's rated as high. Who do we rate for?

--Sb008 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is how it's used, and this is also true of the quality assessment. The importance criteria (see above link) are clear enough but I'll bet that very few people even look at the criteria before asserting an arbitrary judgment. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Question remains, who do we rate for? What's the purpose? --Sb008 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Notts County F.C. season

As I sing to you all "Should it stay or should it go!" Govvy (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Go. The vast majority of AfDs we've had on National League club seasons have resulted in deletion. Number 57 13:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

k, have sent it to AfD. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the 2019-20 Chesterfield F.C. season was added to AfD if anyone is interested. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox career information: why domestic leagues only?

In the infobox of articles about football players, English-language Wikipedia includes only information regarding their domestic league appearances and the goals they scored in said leagues. Domestic cups, international cups, as well as any other official competitions, are simply ignored, and so are a player's appearances, and goals scored, in any one of them. This does not make much sense.

Iker Casillas' infobox says he defended Real Madrid in 510 matches. These, however, are his appearances in La Liga only, albeit he has done the very same thing for the Galácticos another 150 times in Champions League alone, not to mention his appearances in Copa del Rey and in other official competitions. In fact, Wikipedia's List of Real Madrid CF players states that Casillas defended Real Madrid in 725 official matches. Therefore, 215 official matches played by Casillas are not counted in his career infobox; amongst them are those of his 3 Champions League titles. Likewise, Paolo Maldini's infobox says he defended Milan in 647 matches. These are his appearances in Serie A only, albeit he has done the very same thing for the Rossoneri another 135 times in Champions League alone, not to mention his appearances in Coppa Italia and in other official competitions. Nonetheless, further down on the page, the same article shows that, in fact, Maldini has defended Milan in 902 official matches, 255 of them being non-domestic league ones. Thus, 255 official matches played by Maldini are not counted in his career infobox; amongst them are those of his 5 Champions League titles.

These two ex-players have certainly played more official matches in non-domestic league competitions, than several other players could in their entire careers. So, it seems relevant to include those appearances in their infoboxes.

Moreover, as posted in another topic of this talk page, there also is quite a big problem regarding information of those Brazilian players who defend clubs that do not compete on national levels. Brazil's 27 state leagues do not count as "domestic league", probably for they are organized by each state's independently-administred football federations, who are only affiliated - so, not exactly subortinated - to Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), which is responsible for the nationally played Series A, B, C and D, as well as for Copa do Brasil. State leagues' matches, however, are still official - as well as are cup matches.

Anyway, the point is: the infobox of football players' biography articles should cover all the official matches they happen to play, instead of the current "domestic leagues only" matches. There are no differences in value or importance between domestic leagues, domestic cups, and international cups, given that they are all official competitions; and if the criterion for including some information on the infobox is the status of being official, then all official matches should be covered, not only those of domestic leagues. But, of course, this is just how I see things; what about you, Wikipedians?

179.232.188.80 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Ikeber

It could be good to have an option for telling if the matches counted at the infobox are only league, all games or games in certain leagues. E.g., there are several women's football articles where I can't fill the infobox as I only have data of matches in the first division. Asturkian (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, excluding things like domestic cup and Champions league never made much sense to me either. What is the rationale behind it? Valenciano (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why it has always been league appearances only, but I would hazard a guess that it's either because there will be endless disputes and edit wars about what counts as a first-team appearance (e.g. are appearances in county cups or those pre-season tournaments first team appearances?), or because cup appearances are more difficult to source for historical players.
The issue with changing the text to allow cup appearances to be included, is that it would mean thousands of articles instantly become wrong. However, if there was agreement that it would be worth allowing cup games to be included, we could add a parameter in the infobox (e.g. | leagueandcup = y) to give editors the option of switching the text from "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only" to "Senior league and cup appearances and goals only" if they want. Number 57 18:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way we could just say "OK, from now on infobox stats are for all appearances, not just the league", because I can guarantee that 99.999999999% of articles would never get changed and therefore would contain incorrect data. The only possible way it could be changed is by the use of a parameter as N57 describes, although I still suspect it would lead to incorrect usage and general chaos -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's purely the lack of data about Cup appearances, even for modern clubs (Soccerway/Soccerbase don't count county cups in England, for example, you have to try and fund match reports in local papers!) - keeping it as domestic league games only is easy and fair. GiantSnowman 09:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to add a note about league stats only in some divisions?? As I say, that is the main problem for a lot of women footballers? Asturkian (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The |below= parameter could be modified to take a footnote set by a new parameter (e.g. |appearances_note=), with the current league only message as the default. —  Jts1882 | talk 

Content dispute at The Invincibles (football)

There is currently a content dispute at The Invincibles (football). Further community input is requested here, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

United Counties League

Can we merged these articles together?

• United Counties League (1890s)
• United Counties League 1894
• United Counties League 1895

Not sure if there are anymore, but I don't see the point in having it in separate articles. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest so. There are a few leagues I created articles on that had fewer than ten seasons (like Metropolitan–London League), so I just added the tables in the article itself. Number 57 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Should they not be hist-merged together? Govvy (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ordinary merging is fine. See WP:MERGETEXT for how to do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How to source NT competitive record section?

I'm looking to nominate Lebanon national football team for FAC. However, it had been previously pointed out to me, in a peer review, that the fact that the Competitive record section is unsourced would be a problem. Question: would adding sources to the table solve it, or should I have to add prose to each subsection? I'm asking because Lebanon has never qualified for the WC, and have only played twice in the Asian Cup. Having to write: "Lebanon has not qualified for the 1994 WC, and the 1998 WC, and the 2002 WC. They have also not qualified to the 2006, 2010, and 2014 editions, as well as in 2018." seems pedantic. What are your opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you need prose, you could word it as something like “Lebanon began World Cup Qualifying for the 1994 edition, however have never qualified for the tournament”. However I believe a referenced table should suffice, as it looks clearer imo. WDM10 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks! I've submitted the article for a peer review, if you felt like giving your input there. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate ref bot?

Hi, is there any sort of bot that detects if the same reference has been used more than once? In the sense that, ref 1 and ref 4, for example, share the same URL. It's a bit difficult for me to check for duplicate refs in articles with 200-ish refs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's one that goes round combining them, although I can't recall which one. I believe AWB also fixes them. Number 57 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

AWB does, as does WP:REFILL and similar ref-fixing scripts/tools. GiantSnowman 17:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks! I've sent a request to use AWB. I can't find the option at REFILL. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of French Women's league

Is French Women's league (Division 1 Feminine) fully professional? If a player plays a match in that league, is she eligible for a wiki article? Kokoeist (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A guy has nominated several articles of French women's footballers for deletion citing WP:NFOOTY. They all have played at least 10 matches in league Kokoeist (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues suggests not- it suggests that only the US and UK are. Although I'm sure I read something to the contrary before. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This article from the start of the 2019–20 season states that "By and large, the league is part-time". Kokoeist to save everyone the hassle of a bunch of AfDs, it would be good if you could reinstate the prods you removed. Cheers, Number 57 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they league is fully professional. All articles need to meet WP:GNG. That's the deal; always has been.

For example, if you rely on NFOOTY alone, a league may included one year ... removed later ... and articles can be deleted because it's all easily buried in Project Talk pages and archives. Now, if you adhere to WP:GNG which takes priority over WP:NFOOTY, there's no problem. Good luck! Hmlarson (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know how to create kit templates?

Hi, I'm looking for someone to help me out in making a kit template to be used in a match article (1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match). Thanks in advance! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: What's the design/colours of the kit? S.A. Julio (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: The two kits are found in this website. The first image (the players lining-up) represents Mandatory Palestine national football team: light blue shirt, striped socks (I assume in white and light blue). In the third picture (the guy running) is the Lebanon national football team, wearing a white kit, black collar, and black and white striped socks. If you need other details let me know. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Dutch contributor needed!

Hi all. I'm working up the 1981 UEFA Cup Final article and the "road to the final" section is in desperate need of someone who can access and understand Dutch journalism sources to beef up AZ's passage through. There's not much out there in our English press to cover it (but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that one!!). Cheers in advance. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Here're some Dutch sources:

• https://www.azfanpage.nl/1980-1981-uefa-cup/
• https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/results?query=(az+uefa)&page=1&sortfield=date&cql%5B%5D=(date+_gte_+%2201-08-1980%22)&cql%5B%5D=(date+_lte_+%2230-06-1981%22)&coll=ddd

--Sb008 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd url you can narrow down by specifying dates around the match dates. I picked kinda a full year (01-08-1980 - 30-06-1981) --Sb008 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sb008 fantastic, thanks!! I could use some help translating those match reports mind you.......? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:I don't have time to dig into this. You cam download the newspaper articles as txt or pdf, and copy/paste the text into a translator. Not the best result, but it will give you a general idea. If there're are 1 or 2 articles which raise questions, I can have a look at them. --Sb008 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this be considered a treble?

Hi their has been a discussion at the Liverpool F.C. talk page on whether or not Liverpool's winning of the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League, 2019 UEFA Super Cup, and the 2019 FIFA Club World Cup should be considered a treble or not. we could not reach a consensus on the matter and I have brought it here to request a proper vote. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes

• I think it could be considered notable enough REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but also no, and depends on the sourcing. A "treble" is whatever a reliable source refers to. If a number of newspapers and other sources start calling it a "Cup treble" then that is the overriding definition per the basic concepts of Wikipedia's verifiability. That previously a "domestic" Vs "continental" treble has been established does not mean, and will never mean that we use Wikipedia's definition of a treble as the go-to. The same way we do not use our own definition of "major" trophies. As trophies come into and out of existence this is even more likely to happen, or as more trophies become available or are won in unique combinations otherwise not identified. Koncorde (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

OK of course you're correct and my earlier comment was too simplistic, but we need to take it on a case by case basis. For this specific instance there's two big flaws IMO, the first being they were won in different seasons! So to me it is more a case of ESC/WCC and the El-in-waiting counting for 2019-20. The second issue is the status of these super cups, which as we all know are bonus competitions for existing winners of more important trophies, which in the case of the UEFA Super Cup requires only one match to win, and the World Club Cup only two, with the semi-final opponent (with all due respect to those clubs) often being weaker than the European entrant would normally face in domestic competition, never mind in continental matches. So it's really clutching at straws to equate this anywhere near to a domestic, European or even the 3-cups treble that Liverpool did in 2001. That size of club is successful enough that they don't need to attach undue importance to the bonus trophies. Worth mentioning in addition to the bigger stuff they win (as in List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season), but not as a central part of it. Crowsus (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I get your point and i do think that including the Super Cup is a stretch. The reason that I suggested it as a treble is beacuse they are connected Liverpool could not have qualified for the CWC if they had not won the Champions League the season before. And the same goes for the super cup. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would go the other way and say the connection is why they are not part of a treble, they are just bonuses. A double or treble is winning independent trophies over a season. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, the 2018–19 Premier League has to be included with the 2019–20 Champions League, as you access the latter by winning the former. As Jts explains, the connection itself is reason for them not to be considered a treble. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter: they are in different seasons. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely the CWC is notable enough to be included? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think is notable. It is what we can verify in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the cups are in the same season given that seasons are just an artificial construction that differ depending on where you are in the world. Take Norway for instance, March to November season, so in theory they can win all competitions in a single given season that a British club couldn't under that logic, meanwhile there is fundamentally nothing stopping a competition being moved around in the calendar. So, per my original comment, verifiability in reliable sources is the go-to. Anything else is Original Research and likely subject to bias. Koncorde (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

[15] [16] the second one especially. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem there being immediately that the source is Liverpool themselves. It would need to be secondary sources. Plural. Koncorde (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Barcelona and Real Madrid have both won that particular combination of trophies three times each. Its basically selective, biased Anglocentric reporting from the club itself and a blog website intended to make a good achievement a 'unique, unprecedented' one for clickbait purposes and to score bragging points over Man U and Chelsea who failed to follow up their Champions League wins with the bonus cups. Crowsus (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No

• Please see Treble (association football) on what a treble is. Crowsus (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I thought the treble was, league, FA Cup and League Cup. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

a treble not the treble REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Crowsus. The treble can also be considered the Champions League, league and domestic cup. Definitely not Champions League, UEFA Super Cup and Club World Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, a treble is the domestic league, domestic cup and champions league. Kante4 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. In England the double was traditionally the league and FA cup. As the doubles became more common place in the PL era the league cup was sometimes included as part of a treble as an afterthought. Man Utd's treble including the CL is widely considered a treble. The shield and supercup trophies have never been considered part of a double or treble. Although, per Koncorde, this could change in the future if sources use it. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - There are only certain combinations of trophies that constitute a treble, and only one that constitutes the Treble. Liverpool's two super cups probably don't contribute towards any semblance of a treble in anyone's book. – PeeJay 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - More of a trilogy (related) than a treble (non related). --Sb008 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - The only trebles according to this encyclopedia are continental (league, cup, continent) and domestic (league, cup, league cup). We should keep it consistent. WDM10 (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - The Champions League win was for a previous season than the latter two competitions. They would have to win the Premier League before achieving even a debatable treble.--EchetusXe 14:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - As the trophies were won over two seasons, it's a stretch to call it a treble as far as I'm concerned. I've yet to see it declared a treble by thr media either, which would some weight. I'll have to vote based on this. NapHit (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Much as I admire Jürgen Klopp and his brilliant team, they haven't done a treble because the trophies were won across two seasons and, no matter how prestigious they might seem to the uninitiated on paper, two of them are noddy contests that exist as add-ons to the main event. The UEFA Super Cup and the Club World Cup have little real credibility and are on a par with the FA Charity Shield – no more than exhibition stuff. The best claim of any Liverpool team to a treble was in the 1983–84 season under Joe Fagan when they won the European Cup, League Championship and League Cup. They had a much lesser claim to one in 2000–01 when they won the FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup. In comparison, the Manchester United treble in 1998–99 was European Cup, League Championship and FA Cup; while the Manchester City treble in 2018–19 was all three English trophies but no continental one. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or

I reverted a load of vandalism on the article, however, it might need someone with a better eye to have a check through to see if everything is okay with it. I reported those last two editors to SPI, don't know if anyone else has seen that pattern before, related to another account, etc. Also, I think we could do with adding the archive bot on the talk page there. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've setup the archive, so it should run tonight (between about midnight and 6am UTC usually). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I've adding archive bot before to some articles in the past, but admin had to fix all my errors!! Articles are safer when I don't do it. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

NT "recent call-ups" club

I'm sure this has already been discussed before, but what club should be put in the "recent call-ups" section of the national team? The club the player was at at the time of his last match, or his current club? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

At the time. If the player has since moved then a footnote could always be added but the main club shown should be the one relevant at the time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Has there been consensus established on this, or is this your personal opinion? Just to specify, I'm fine with either solution, as long as everyone else agrees. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's "everyone else"? there's a loose consensus among people who discuss things here, but they're not generally the editors who update the articles. See what I think is the most recent discussion on the matter, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 126#Clubs in national team squad lists, which clearly illustrates the problem. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, this just confirms that there is no consensus whatsoever... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

FC Basel players NB at the bottom of the articles

Huligan0 (talk · contribs) does pretty good job creating players (and other pages, like seasons) associated with FC Basel history, but I have a concern regarding the message he leaves at the bottom of pretty much every page: (NB: Despite all efforts, the editors of these books and the authors in "Basler Fussballarchiv" have failed to be able to identify all the players, their date and place of birth or date and place of death, who played in the games during the early years of FC Basel). Examples: Leopold Wionsowsky, 1914–15 FC Basel season. Do you guys think it's appropriate? Doesn't seem so to me. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't think it's appropriate, personally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Not needed. And it's obvious the books don't have the info. If the books had the info, the info would be in the article sourced to that book. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello together, first thanks for the compliment. I have indeed created about 300 articles (alone 80 or 90 seasons) so far associated with the history of FC Basel and have added the statement some 50/60 where at least two of the details are missing. Working together with the editors of these books, Josef Zindle, we have been able to fill a few gaps. He uses the statement in his book and he suggested I add the sentance as well. Therefore I find this little discussion interesting and would like to know what other authors feel about me adding this statement. A question tho' BlameRuiner (talk · contribs) what do you mean by concern? The word irritates me a little bit. Looking forward to some more feedback. I remain with kindest regards in these difficult times and send best wishes from an empty Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I personally agree with the statements made by the users above: there is not need to say that the book wasn't able to find all the details. When I see a player without a date of birth, for example, the fact that the book doesn't have that info is self-evident. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is a book that is treated as authoritative for a football club's history and certain information is missing there, despite the authors best efforts, I think there is some value in stating that the source failed to find the informations rather than that editors hadn't put the information in the article. There might be a better way of conveying this information. Perhaps a footnote to the players section might be better a place, explaining the questionmarks before the player surnames. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, this is not appropriate. We should almost never write "unknown" in Wikipedia's voice. The information is simply unknown to the editor who added it or the authors of the sources they used; usually the information is available somewhere in records offices etc. The series of articles should be stripped of the text and every "Unknown" claim. Number 57 01:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: What about players who we know aren't alive, but of whom we don't know their year of death. How would we represent that? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think just make it clear from the wording of the article that they are deceased. If we have any rough idea of when they died, or the age, use that instead. Otherwise, just refer to them in the past tense. Number 57 14:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The MoS advises for subjects known to be dead, to include the date of their last known activity in the opening bracket, as John Smith (1 May 1856 – after 1900). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Also agree that wording like that is not appropriate in articles. GiantSnowman 12:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox netball biography

Hi, I'm looking for some help with in editing Template:Infobox netball biography so it can cater for Ama Agbeze who has played for at 12/15 clubs. Still working on improving article maybe more clubs. The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netball is not very active, so I thought someone here could help me out. Djln Djln (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Djln: I've made some edits on infoboxes so might be able to help. Why don't you list the changes you want made on the template talk page. If it's just the extra clubs I think I can add those. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Added extra clubs up to 14. Is that enough? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks for offer of help. Very much appreciated. I was thinking 15/20 if that is ok. I have also noticed in the past the field hockey equivalent could do with more clubs and coaching options. Djln Djln (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

List of ATK players

Some of us has received a message re this linked article e.g. this edit talks about this page and reviving the article. I have no knowledge on this Indian division so I don't know why the user has done the edit on my user talk page.

The Category:ATK (football club) players lists all the players that played for the club and the page may contain unreliable sources. There is certainly no need for two articles to be the same either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that all comments are made at the AFD and that both you and @SHISHIR DUA: be wary of WP:CANVASS. GiantSnowman 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That was kinda window shopping, does seem over the top from Shishir, I also question if we really need the amount of list articles he is creating. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC 2–8 Newcastle Jets FC

Is that really that notable for an article?? Govvy (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

We have Portsmouth F.C. 7–4 Reading F.C., so why not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, plenty of articles about games. Have you done a search for GNG sources? GiantSnowman 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I found the article in the New Page review list, so I am asking so I know how to review the article correctly. Govvy (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See Category:Association football matches. GiantSnowman 19:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not notable, just as with most of the other articles about individual games, but I know the horse has bolted. I just wish we could channel the energies of those who create these pointless articles into more critical areas of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

List of FIFA World Cup final stadiums

Would an article like this be considered notable? WDM10 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An article for Category:Stadiums that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match. Sure I guess.--EchetusXe 05:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be fine. Go ahead. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's feel a little bit of duplication of List of FIFA World Cup stadiums which is a mess! Be nice if older articles were cleaned up before starting on new ones know! Govvy (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

1978 FA Cup Final

Hello folks. I've got the subject article currently at WP:FAC following a successful GAN. Any comments from the good people here on the nomination would be great. The nom is here. Cheers, stay safe!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Football kit

Hi could someone make this kit for me? its the 1992–93 Oldham Athletic away/3rd kit [17] REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebanon national football team

Just wanted to let you know that I've nominated the article for FAC. In case anyone wants to give their opinion, the entry is here. Thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Juan Luis Hevia

Just stumbled upon this as i was reading an article on Luis Aragonés. AfD written all over the place, am i correct?

Not going to mention the shambolic display the "piece" is in (irrelevant to the matter at hand), but this person has not played a pro match in his life (see his BDFUTBOL profile https://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j201147.html; after that horrible injury in 2007, either he retired altogether or never played in higher than Tercera División). Surely, a visit from the Spain NT manager does not alter Mr. Hevia's notability status, does it?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks like a candidate for AFD! GiantSnowman 13:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Common spelling or official spelling?

What should be preferred for a player's article's title? The common way the name is spelled/transliterated, or the way it's presented on the person's official document? Example: Arabic: مهدي خليل can be transliterated as either Mehdi Khalil (the way the article is currently named) or Mahdi Khalil. The former is more common per Google search, while the latter seems to be preferred by the player (he uses that spelling on his social media accounts; let's assume that it's the official spelling on, say, his passport). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that when in doubt, go with the relevant governing body, in this case the Lebanese FA, since that's the spelling the press releases are going to use. This comes up all the time on tennis articles owing to the LTA's "no diacritics and no non-latin alphabets" rule, which is why we have Novak Djokovic, not Novak Đoković or Новак Ђоковић. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

falebanon.com isn't the federation's official website; it's actually a news website I work for ahahah. The federation's official documents will say the name in Arabic. If it helps, the Asian Football Confederation says Mehdi, not Mahdi. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would think we should go by WP:COMMONNAME. Anyways should be a redirect from the other spelling --SuperJew (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Smith (footballer, born 1996) age

Is it just me or is the article showing him as aged 23 when he should be 24?--EchetusXe 18:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Shows as 24 on my computer --SuperJew (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It shows 24 at my end. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For me too. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

These things happen sometimes when the age in an infobox shows one less than the reality when their birthdays have passed or if it is today. I have put the article Chris Herd on the InternetArchive machine showing his age is 30 when it should be 31 by now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay it shows 24 now for me too. Oh well.--EchetusXe 07:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

While this didn't happen in this particular instance, it happens very often that when I view a player's article during his birthday, it shows his age as 1 less than what it actually should be. It's a bit inconsistent, I don't know why. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Could be a cache issue (and not necessarily with your computer)? I've noticed that population updaters sometimes take a while to filter through to pages after being updated. Number 57 13:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If a cache issue, a null edit may fix it. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Germany national football team records

I seem to remember this subject being discussed fairly recently, but maybe at that point it was more the results lists. Can someone have a look at this, if you can even get the page to load, thanks... Crowsus (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussion here, seems likely the ip editor expanding the article is a blocked editor... Spike 'em (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the lists I objected to in previous discussion, many of the other lists need tidying down to top 5 or 10 rather than use some other arbitrary cutoff Spike 'em (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

National team record pages

Is there a general format on how these pages should be done? Also, should a format template be created for the sake of consistency? WDM10 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bassam Adeel Jaleel

This page nominated for deletion some time ago, but the result was redirect, which is fine by me. The redirect is now removed by original creator and the page is restored. How to deal with this? There's a db-repost for deleted pages, but I'm not sure what to do with redirects. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that myself as the article is on my watchlist, seems the article wasn't deleted before the redirect, I always thought the AfD should of stayed open longer, there wasn't much conversation on it. However, no additional citations were added so I guess it could be reverted straight back to a redirect. Govvy (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The decision for a redirect seems questionable. He is president of a national football association affiliated with FIFA. This seems to be enough for notability in most cases. On what grounds is the Maldives FA excluded? It's not an important FA seems a dubious argument. On the other hand, the decision would be appropriate if all the presidents of national FAs with articles are notable for other reasons? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen a consensus that president of a national football association is notable by default. Certainly not by NFOOTY criteria. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect in-line with AFD consensus. If you believe he is notable then WP:DRV. GiantSnowman 17:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Voided results

As the English non-league seasons and results have been voided from below the National League, what does that mean for player statistics? Are they voided as per the 1939–40 season, where appearances are not included in infoboxes and left in just the 'other' column in stats tables?--EchetusXe 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what The Football Association said. For example, after the 2019–20 Lebanese Premier League got cancelled, the Lebanese Football Association explicitly said that the 3 matchdays played would not count. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

All stats should be included IMO. What does The FA or Lebanese federation have to do with players' stats at wikipedia? Are these proper domestic league games? Yes. Have the games been voided AND replayed? No they weren't, the stats should stay. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia should show the official league games. And, since the Lebanese Football Association has stated that the 3 matchdays played would not count, it means that, as of today, those 3 matchdays are not official league games (even though they were when they were played). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"What does The FA [...] have to do with players' stats at wikipedia?" If the FA expunges the results than officially the games did not happen, and that will be reflected in players' official stats. They should therefore be excluded from stats on here, although the fact that the player also played N matches which were expunged can be mentioned in a footnote. This previously happened in cases such as when Aldershot folded mid-season. Games they had already played were removed from players' records and relegated to a footnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As with Richard Fuller (footballer) for example.--EchetusXe 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Player statistics *will* be voided, this is what the precedent is when a season is ended prematurely e.g. the 1939–40 Football League season or a club folds/is expelled e.g. Chester City in the 2009–10 Football Conference season. It would not be right for us to go against the grain and include them. And IMO we're probably going to see all the English league seasons voided. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Careful Matty - don't let the Liverpool fans hear you implying that they won't be getting awarded the Premier League title (as is apparently "only right") ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

With 3/4 of the season gone, it should be enough for the honour to be won. If Paul Smith honoured a contestant a six figure prize for getting an answer wrong then the club should be as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Well that's a very random example Iggy. Anyway Wikipedia has to follow what the sources say rather than what we feel is correct or moral. We will not be listing Liverpool as Premier League champions if the relevant authorities and media do not give them the title. Back to the issue at hand, I remember hearing or reading somewhere somebody say that if the Premier League/EFL season was voided then player statistics would still count. Unfortunately I cannot find the source of this now. There are the precedents of the 1939–40 season and Chester's last season, but as you may have heard we are living in unprecedented times. The powers that be could decide that the season is ended eventually (probably behind closed doors), or to end the season as it is (perhaps using 'points average' to balance matches played), or to void the season entirely. They could decide to keep the statistics players tallied up on official records even if the season is expunged. Which throws up the question of cup competitions, would those statistics still count? The EFL Cup was concluded so why remove those statistics? I cannot see Manchester City's EFL Cup honour being taken from them. That is for another day however. I brought up the issue purely for the issue of step 3 and below of the National League System. This issue may be actually be up us to resolve as player statistics are barely recorded anywhere at all for that level (on Wikipedia or elsewhere), there has been no official word (or mention) of it, and frankly not many people care. The solutions I can see are:
1) Remove statistics now, write them in the article's text if complete, and set the infobox to 0 (0) or whatever they would have been on 1 August 2019.
2) Keep them in, count them as games that happened and therefore valid.
3) Wait and see what happens with the Premier League, EFL and National League. Then follow the official ruling that will be given for player statistics in those leagues should any of those be voided.--EchetusXe 05:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, i would just wait the FA to announce its official table. If it is all blank then it is another thing.

So, in case of all blank, i think we can still dig out secondary source that have all the result which pretend no match were voided. So , in case that happen, we need to discuss the official table or "unofficial" table, which one should be preferred, since wikipedia is based on secondary reliable source, but the FA is the authoritative source to count the score and rank the teams in a league. Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The results are gonna be expunged is such a vague statement, really. I've read tons of news pieces and competition regulations trying to get what it means exactly. And the only conclusion I came to is just that these voided results will not count towards determining promotions and relegations (which is after all the whole point of having a league table). Do they really gonna make it look like the games never happened? Like if when the next time Man U plays against Man City, they will say on match previews that its their first meeting since 2018? No top scorer award for this season? No Player of the year? Every player who made debut - will make another debut next year? Scrapping players' records at Wikipedia does not make any sense. Wiki is driven my multiple sources, not just one authoritative one (aka The FA). Can't believe no one else hare have a problem with this. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

How about match that w/o after terminated at 70 minutes? For completed match for sure they should count on the infobox, but i doubt on league table. It happened before that a team withdrew in mid-league and all matches involve that team were voided, even for the match that the withdrew team had lost . If the FA made a new calculation of the table based on existing match, the organization has authoritative to do so. Matthew hk (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding tables

Please see Template talk:CBB yearly record start#RFC request for an RFC that has widespread implications for this project. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Maya Yoshida

Yesterday a 110000+ byte addition of text was added which therefore makes the article too long. Two days ago it had only 39 refs but has now jumped to 233.

• Is all of this notable?
• Are these added sources reliable (the ones retrieved on 5 April 2020)?
• Are some of the images added free to use?

See what you think of the article's current version. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Leon James (footballer)

He was born in England and that technically also makes his native country? So I really am not sure I get adding him in to this category per this edit, [18], Govvy (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't make sense to add "X/Y expatriate sportspeople in Y/X" if the player is a dual-citizen of X and Y. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd found a source here saying about dual nationality due to his parents being Thai. Therefore I don't think the expatriates category should be there either. This article does not have any expatriate categories since Kieren Westwood was born in England. With Leon James, he started at Leicester, says Soccerway, in his country of birth. Another reason to consider with the expatriate category. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

k, I reverted the edit. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly broken interlanguage links and templates

FYI, interlanguage links may be broken in the near future for some articles, as well as some templates used in articles which are relying on information from Wikidata (e.g. {{Soccerway}} or {{NFT player}}). This is due to an important table for Wikidata being unintentionally dropped in production (see T249565 and incident documentation). True duplicate Wikidata items are also being created as a result of this issue. If anyone wants to quickly fix this issue for a given article, you can search for and then edit the corresponding Wikidata item (any change will do). Otherwise, the problem will be solved with the table being rebuilt, though this could take a week (or possibly more). S.A. Julio (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

New categories to be aware of

• Category:Association football coaches - anyone who coached at a club, not in a head coach/manager capacity. Very common for many ex or current players and many managers also started as coaches.
• Category:Association football players who received a testimonial - self explanatory.
• Category:Association football scouts - someone employed by a club to scout players/opposition teams.
• Category:Association football player-managers - someone who was a player-manager/head coach somewhere.
• Category:Association football agents - not an uncommon career move for retired players.
• Category:Association football non-playing staff - only put them in a club/league sub-category please. Anyone who worked at a club in a non-playing/manager capacity i.e. coach, staff, physio
• Category:Association football physiotherapists - a more uncommon route for retired players.

The coach category in particular is brand new and thousands of articles need to be placed there. Something to be getting on with during lockdown.--EchetusXe 06:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is receiving a testimonial really a defining characteristic of a player? Back before they basically got scrapped because players didn't need the money it was an extremely common occurrence........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah probably not. You'd have to take it to XFD.--EchetusXe 07:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The definition of defining with footballers is muddied waters. After all, how defining of a player is that they were Category:Isthmian League players, at the seventh and eighth tier of English football?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Association football coaches is going to need some watching given manager, head coach and coach are interchangeable in some countries. Hack (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Would coaches also work for a technical assistant of a national team? Also, what's the difference between non-playing staff and coach? Is a goalkeeper coach both? What about the aforementioned technical assistant? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Coaches are part of non-playing staff, so the coach category is a subcat of the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding all articles of a category to watchlist

Is there any automatic way to add all the articles under a category (say Category:Lebanese footballers) to my watchlist? And also, a way to know if anything has been added at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You might want to ask at WP:VPT. GiantSnowman 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia Premier League as a part of Liga 1 history

Hi, I want to ask about your opinion about Indonesian Premier League (IPL) is a part of Liga 1 (Indonesia) history. As you can see in the article, IPL became a legal and official top division league in Indonesia as Indonesia Super League (ISL) was considered an illegal in 2011–12 season. Both competition then unified in 2013 to form 2013 Indonesia Super League. User Wanzac insisted that in Liga 1 article, the IPL competition should be included in Liga 1 article which means to merged the article together. What do you think? Should I merged them or keep both separated? CC: Yogwi21. Wira rhea (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Unification league in 2014 season not 2013 season. try to copy the Indonesian version Wanzac (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Improving the quality of the European Cup/Champion League finals articles

So with the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge kicking off, I was thinking if anyone would be interested in trying to improve some of the stub articles (with references) for the European Cup/UEFA Champions Legue final as some of the articles for the European Cup/UEFA Champions League finals are very bare. Also if anyone want to expand any of the other cup finals that isn't stub, they can do so as I have posted a table with the page current rating as of right now. HawkAussie (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

European Cup/Champion League final ratings
1950s		1960s		1970s		1980s		1990s		2000s		2010s
—		1960		1970		1980		1990		2000		2010
		1961		1971		1981		1991		2001		2011
		1962		1972		1982		1992		2002		2012
		1963		1973		1983		1993		2003		2013
		1964		1974		1984		1994		2004		2014
		1965		1975		1985		1995		2005		2015
1956		1966		1976		1986		1996		2006		2016
1957		1967		1977		1987		1997		2007		2017
1958		1968		1978		1988		1998		2008		2018
1959		1969		1979		1989		1999		2009		2019

Football stadums

Some football stadiums change name (sponsor related) every few years. Often this results in a page move of the stadium page. Another option would be to use piped links. Is there a policy about the prefered way to deal with this? Personally I prefer using piped links and leave the page title of the stadium at the original (non sponsored) name because of the, in general, temporary nature of the sponsored name. --Sb008 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The consensus has been to keep the non-sponsor name as that is the common name of the stadium. I don't pipe links using the sponsor name in articles for the same reason. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Kansas City Comets and Major Arena Soccer League

Are the Kansas City Comets and the Major Arena Soccer League considered fully professional? Should be a draft on a player with this team be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Staffordshire Senior Cup 1899-1900

Is an individual season of a county cup competition notable? The article is unsourced, only contains one external link and, after a quick google, it doesn't look like it would pass WP:GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree should I request deletion? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, county cups were a pretty big deal back then (unlike now), but I don't know how that would translate into any sort of meaningful guideline on notability..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say they were a pretty big deal until around 1900 and then declined until they were of no real significance after World War I. Even then it took until 1955 for a non-league club to win the Staffordshire Senior Cup.--EchetusXe 15:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

1994–95 FC Dinamo București season

Does this qualify under WP:NSEASONS? Govvy (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

they finished 3rd in the top flight that season and participated in the UEFA Cup so I'd say yes. However it is in need of improvement. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Atto Abbas

@176.54.125.39 has sent a message to me (and many other footy-related users) on my talk page regarding this player. Leaving aside the ludicrous claims in the article itself, what is peculiar is the sheer amount of articles about him. However, none of these pages (bar maybe one or two) seem reliable sources (I would go as far as saying that they are hoax websites). What do you guys think? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Two years ago Transfermarkt wouldn't add him, despite his name being on Wikipedia.....

It happens, from time to time. He might exist, and he/his agent will be trying to get his name visible in the public domain. There are a lot of websites that'll publish pretty well anything if it'll bring in readers who click on the adverts, and a lot of people keen to accept a couple of dollars writing for them: as soon as something borderline-reliable takes such a piece, it's all over the internet. See e.g. these two AfDs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I remember seeing that Transfermarkt thread when nominating Atto Abbas for deletion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Shawn Lawson

Hello, football enthusiasts. The above draft about a football player was turned down for lack of general notability. Do his efforts for the Detroit City FC meet the notability criteria for a football player?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NFOOTY, the player must have played (at least one minute) in a fully professional league. The National Independent Soccer Association, where Detroit City FC play, isn't considered fully professional. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nehme1499.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Standard Liège

I am not sure whats the situation with Standard Liège, lots of unsourced changes about being expelled from the league. Is that correct, anyone able to help find the right sources? Govvy (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable this is but all it seems is that they have lost their top level licence from the Belgian FA. But I don't think that equates to being chucked out just yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found [19], [20] saying that they've had their licences revoked, although the first one says that it may well end up with CAS. I've added a note about it in the article (not the lead), and we should await confirmation of what the Belgian leagues are doing next year- by looks of it, they've revoked lots of licences. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, they are a fair size old club, didn't release but it must be tough times for Belgium football. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

See here (using google translate). It's not CAS but BAS and doesn't apply to Standard Liège only. And this articles only mentions the clubs in the highest league. There're even more. --Sb008 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It are 7 ckubs in total, see here. --Sb008 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Here the names of all 7 are listed. --Sb008 (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ian Fusedale

I was just reading an obituary at Spurs website, I was trying to work out if he actually played any league football or if he can pass NFooty or not. However I don't see it, by any chance does anyone else have any sources? Govvy (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, he never played league football in England (for Spurs or anyone else) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest how can you have a "part-time professional contract"? GiantSnowman 20:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Guess it just means he was semi-pro, like a non-league player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea on that one, there are no recorded league games or cup games in my Spurs book, all I see is, all I have is honours for Eastern Counties League Champions for 1960-61 and 1961-62 for the Spurs 'A' Team. Which is one of the reserve teams. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Part time professional can mean that he worked in an essential industry, or had other commitments (sports, military, farm) that meant he wasn't always able to be present, they were also extended to people who a club didn't want to pay a full-time wage towards. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

RfCs need closing

There are two football-related RfCs which have petered out - please can an uninvolved admin review and close?

Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section.

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 07:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Punjab FC

This is regarding Indian football club Punjab F.C.. THe club started as Minerva Punjab FC, by Ranjit Bajaj and last year, a company named Roundglass bought 50% of it, and renamed Punjab FC. Now, Ranjit Bajaj sold all the shares to RoundGlass, and left the club Punjab FC (except the academy). So, Roundglass owns Punjab FC and Ranjit Bajaj owns Minerva Academy FC (their official twitter handle changed the name). But the article is now a complete mess. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would then rip out all the academy stuff and make the article more about Punjab F.C. but only mention the original name in the History section. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Club name change in player's infobox

In case a player has played for a club prior to their name change and after their name change (say, when the club was called Olympic Beirut until 2005, and after 2005, when they became AC Tripoli), should we represent them as two separate clubs, or one club with the most recent name? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say to make it one spell and use the most recent name. It might be an idea to mention the former name in a footnote as well. Jellyman (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say one spell and either show both names separated by a slash, or else use the most recent but with a footnote as suggested by Jellyman -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with newest club name with footnote for former team. This is how I've done it in the past e.g. Rahel Graf. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

When only the most recent name is used it could result in confusion. Suppose we have 2 players. One of them only played for the club prior to the name change and the other for the club both prior and after the name change. If for the second player only the most recent name is used (one spell), while for the first player the less recent name is used, it could seem they never played for the same club (maybe even at the same time). Especially if the old and new nane signifantly differ (e.g. when 2 clubs merge). To avoid this, all players who ever played for that club should have the same, one spell, name listed. I don't think that's what we want. So to use only the most recent name, either results in potential confusion or a unwanted name for those players who only played for the club prior to the name change. So I would say always use the name of the club at the time the player played for that club. For players who played for the club both prior and after the name change there can be a note, a slash or brackets or whatever to indicate the new name of the old name of the club. --Sb008 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"So I would say always use the name of the club at the time the player played for that club" - absolutely. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the most recent name should be used for players who only played before the change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Indeed, but you're suggesting it for players who played for the club both before and after the change. As a result it will look as if both players never played for the same club. --Sb008 (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify better what I meant. The case is about a player ("Player A") who played for Olympic Beirut and AC Tripoli which is basically the same club because in 2005 Olympic Beirut changed its name into AC Tripoli. Now we have another player ("Player B") who only played for the club when it was named Olympic Beirut. So their info boxes (very minimalistic) could look like this:

Player A Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2003–2005 Olympic Beirut 2005–2007 AC Tripoli *Club domestic league appearances and goals

Player B Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2001–2004 Olympic Beirut *Club domestic league appearances and goals

The question is, what to do with the 2 clubnames for Player A for what is basically the same club. The general answer is one spell and to use the most recent club name. Furthermore there should be a slash notation, a note, or something to indicate the other name of the club. When I pick just the footnote option the infobox for Player A should become something like this:

Player A Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2003–2007 AC Tripoli *Club domestic league appearances and goals

But now if we compare "Player A" with "Player B", at first glance, it seems they never played for the same club, when for 1 year the were even teammates.

If we're are consistent, we should change the clubname (with note) for "Player B" as well. Not something one of us would would favour.

So my objections against using the new name (with or without a note, a slash or whatever) only for "Player A".

1. It can result in confusion and inconsistency for 2 players who played for the same club. (Many don't bother to read notes)
2. The club was never named by the new name before the name change. I know the note explains it, but still.
3. Nobody would favour to use, for consistency, only the new name to be used (with a possible note), no matter the time period, for players who only played for the club during the old name period.

So I would prefer to keep using both names, and add a note to the old name of the club. Something like:

Player A Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2003–2005 Olympic Beirut 2005–2007 AC Tripoli *Club domestic league appearances and goals

or even:

Player A Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2003–2005 Olympic Beirut 2005–2007 AC Tripoli *Club domestic league appearances and goals

Advantages:

1. Proper name for each period
2. No confusion with other players

My 2 cents --Sb008 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sb008: personally I think this way is more confusing. At first glance it looks as if the player played for 2 clubs in the 2003-2007 period, even though it was actually one club. It seems to me to make more sense that more users would be confused like this (anyone who reads the page) than be confused by what you were saying (i.e. that 2 players played for different clubs while they actually had a period they were teammates - this would only confuse people comparing players which is less than people who just read about a player as a player). Therefore either way there is a possible confusion at first glance, but I think it is better that the player page as of itself is the clearest it can be. --SuperJew (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: And now its a merge between 2 clubs, e.g. Liverpool and Everton merge into LEC (Liverpool Everton Combination). Which name are you going to use, and are you going to use the same name for players who played for both Liverpool and LEC, and players who played for both Everton and LEC? --Sb008 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Chris - for players who played for both teams (when a team has changed name), use both names separated by a slash. That is what I have done in the past. GiantSnowman 07:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, @GiantSnowman: Considering WP:Slash, a slash does not seem like to good choice. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you read WP:SLASH I don't think it applies here. GiantSnowman 07:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how. Situations where it can be used are explicitly mentioned. Which one of those applies to ours? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Slash with footnote would work. The general objection to using a slash is that it doesn't clarify why the separated items are related; the footnote would do that. I've tended to use just a slash in the (distant) past, when the MoS wasn't really a thing that bothered people much, but in context of this infobox, there shouldn't be much scope for misunderstanding the relationship between separated items: a footnote along the lines of "Small Heath was renamed Birmingham in 1905" would make it explicit. I shall go and apply that particular footnote forthwith. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A footnote would solve the issue of ambiguity with slashes. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me add another argument. I don't know if this applies for all countries, but in my country these are, legally spoken, 2 clubs (3 in case of a merge). --Sb008 (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A merge is different to a name change. With a merge (where a new entity is created, complete with a new article) they should be listed separately. GiantSnowman 07:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What kind of article do you mean, a wiki article or articles of association? Over here, a new nane requires new articles of association which need to be passed by a notary. In caee of a merge, lets say A and B into C, the process is to put it simple, a voluntary take over of A by B and next B changes its name into C. Strictly spoken A stops to exist (except for legal rights related to the name) and B continues as C. The name change, with or without a prior merge/take over, creates a new entity in all cases. --Sb008 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have lost track of what everyone is suggesting, but can I add (in case anyone suggested it) that we should absolutely not use the most current name for all players who ever played for a club that changed name i.e. if West Ham changed their name tomorrow to Olympic Park F.C., it would be utterly ludicrous to change the club name in Bobby Moore's infobox.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Having it listed as two spells like an example above is not correct, looked like he switched teams. Having a slash or footnote is a good idea. Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be consistancy not only on a single page but also between different pages. If only the most recent name is used for a player who played for the club both before and after the name change, for consistancy reasons the same name should be used for players who played only for the club before the name change. To use only the most recent name for players who played only for the club before the name change, is an absurd idea. Therefore, for consistancy, one spell should not be used for players who played for the club both before and after the name change. The objection that in that way it seems as if the player switched clubs, is not valid. This, because strictly (legally) spoken the player indeed switched clubs where all rights and obligitatiobs of the club under the old name are transfered to the club under the new name. The fact that the club under the new name is effectively the same club as the one under the old name, doesn't change that they're strictly spoken 2 clubs and not 1. Two spells and a note to indicate it's effectively the same club reflects the legal status best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb008 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not always does a name-change indicate a new legal entity being created. While AC Tripoli is a "new" entity that bought the rights off the old club (Olympic Beirut), legally becoming its successor, for clubs such as Bekaa SC this is not the case. The club simply changed its name from Nabi Chit SC to Bekaa SC, with no new legal entities being created. The club just changed its name and logo, but no "new" club was created. Also, following your logic about consistency and comparison, Ivan Perišić and Ante Rebić seem to have been born in two different countries ("Yugoslavia" and "Croatia" respectively), even though they were both born in the same city ("Split"). I don't think that showing two clubs in the infobox is appropriate. Either we use a dash, or we use the most recent name and specify with a note that the club changed name in, say, 2005. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how things are arranged in Lebanon, but in my country you cannot change name without changing the articles of association and have them passed by a notary. This creates a new legal entity. It's not one club buying the other, it's done without any payment. The legal rights and obligation are simply transfered from the old to the new entity (club). The CEO, the board, the staff, the players, all will stay the same for the old and new entity. Of course there can be changes, but they're not related to the change of name. Name changes usually take place in between seasons, so if a player leaves at that time, it's because his contract ended, he got sold, but not because of the name change. It applies to all clubs, even for those at the lowest amateur level for which no one would pay a single dime. Clubs here are associations. At amateur cIubs one has to become a member for which you pay a monthly fee. It even applies for amateur branches of clubs with a professional team. It applies to all companies/clubs/organisations, even if you have your one man private company. If you decide to change the name of the company, you create a new legal entity. No selling and buying involved, you don't sell the company to yourself. At amateur level you often see 2 clubs merge. They do it because for both clubs the number of members declined and indepedently they're no longer able to raise a full team. They merge without one paying the other. The members are the owners of the club, before the merge each of their own club, and after the merge of the new joint club. A new name also involves a new registratin at the chambers of commerce (which is not only for commercial enterprises but basically for every company/club/organisation). And frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if something similar is done in Lebanon. A new entity is created but it's something the general public is not aware of. Suppose you had a legal contract with Nabi Chit SC which involves payement for services performed. Now Nabi Chit SC changes its name to Bekaa SC and they stop paying you. Where're are you going to complain? With Nabi Chit SC which no longer exists? Or with Bekaa SC? If there's no legal arrangement for the name change, Bekaa SC can tell you to take hike, cause their name isn't on the contract. They can even send players with an open contract away because they don't perform as well as they hoped. So there has to be some legal arrangement which transfers all rights and obligation of the club with the old name to the club with the new name. And there'll be (without buying or selling involved) or else it would become a legal chaos.

As far as the 2 players are concerned. A player page/info box list a place of birth, a nationality etc, but not "country at birth". So there'll be no conflict, both will have the Croatian nationality as all people who lived in any of the individual republics after the break down of Yugoslavia will have as nationality the nationality of the specific now independent republic. Far more interesting is what you do with players who died before the break down. Will you mention Yugoslav as nationality or the name of the republic in which their birth town is nowadays located?

An even more interesting question is how you're dealing with players who played both for the Yugoslav and Serbian team. As you might know, the autonomous republics became independent one by one (contrary to e.g. the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia where all now individual countries became independent at the same time). After Montenegro became independent, Serbia was the only autonomous republic left in Yugoslavia. So they decided to use the name Yugoslavia no longer as country name, but to use Serbia. So Yugoslavia in its final days and Serbia are the same, only a name change. Now based on the one spell opinion, we should list only Serbia for players who played both for the Yogoslav and Serbian national team. Totally insane I would say. --Sb008 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sb008: WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If you respond to the last paragraph only, it will do. If in your opinion a club team should be dealt with different than a national team, I'm more than interested why. --Sb008 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention

Do we have an established precedent that values the final name of a defunct club over the most common one? Looking at the article for the New Orleans Storm, it says:

The New Orleans Riverboat Gamblers was an American soccer club that competed in the USISL from 1993 to 1999. Based in New Orleans, Louisiana, the club was renamed the New Orleans Storm in 1998. The team folded after the 1999 season.

So the club was in existence for seven years, using one name for five and then a second name for the final two. After the club folded and the article edited to reflect past tense, it would seem to have made sense to change the name back to its most common form. They played nearly three-quarters of their existence under the original name, they made their only Open Cup appearance under the original name, but the article is giving great weight to their final name seemingly because it was the final name. Was that a conscious choice, is that the standing policy of this WikiProject? Thanks in advance. SixFourThree (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree

We usually use the most recent name, AFAIK. GiantSnowman 20:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a stupid rule. Commonname should be used. Currently there is an absurd situation when a club after "100 years" changes its name and folds after first half of a season and the article is placed under the second name. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

When has that ever happened? I've only ever come across this in the context of short-lived American teams which lasted 5 years and had 4 different names! GiantSnowman 09:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I we seen two or three such examples, lower teams from Eastern Europe I think, but I can't remeber which ones. I know I thought "wtf" when I opened the articles. One strange example is also our NK Varaždin (1931–2015)]. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on requiring all tables to have headers

Not sure if people are aware, but there is currently an RfC on requiring all tables to have caption headers. From what I understand of it, this would mean all league tables, squadlists etc – potentially every table in articles like 2019–20 Premier League – would have to have a caption header stating what it includes, even when they are directly below a section heading. Cheers, Number 57 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Also consider using the #wpsport channel in the established Wikipedia Community Discord Server. You can read more here: WP:Discord. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

1982 European Cup Winners' Cup Final

I am trying to find a decent match report webpage for Standard Liege against Barcelona, can anyone help find one a good page to cite, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found a report at Calcio.com. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Nehme1499, used in on Standard Liège in European football which for some reason I started to do a rebuild on the article. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Career statistics" section headings

Hi folks. Can we get a few more opinions on the "Career statistics" section headings for the player article template, please? :-) Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Soccer records and statistics in Australia

Is this article necessary? Doesn't WP:NOSTATS apply, also seems way too broad. Govvy (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem significantly different to all the other articles in Category:Association football records and statistics by country..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realise we had all of those! Govvy (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ATK-Mohunbagan

In January this year, both the clubs merged, forming a new club. So, should the new article on the new club be created, and 'dissolved year' be added in existing articles? ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I preferred new article. Stat the year of merge as foundation. However i don't understand the part in the news article: " will have brand names of ATK and Mohun Bagan.". It is the football club merged or the parent companies ? If it still have two football teams in the same league pyramid, may be don't merge. Matthew hk (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Matthew hk, atk is a team in Indian Super League, owned by an Indian company RPSG group. and mohunbagan plays in I-League, owned by mohunbagan pvt. ltd. Now, in january, RPSG bought 80% shares of mohunbagan. Both the clubs are merged, will have ATK-Mohunbagan name, and will play ISL. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If two established teams merge then it is standard to create a new article about the new team. GiantSnowman 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, what is established teams? ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Team 1 (ATK) and Team 2 (Mohun Bagan) who have merged to form Team 3 (playing name/article location TBC). GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, as per official websites of isl/mb, both names will be there. and in this video owner of RPSG group Sanjiv Goenka siad the playing name. the location is Kolkata. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Well then create a new article at ATK Mohun Bagan FC or whatever it is going to be called. GiantSnowman 18:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, OK ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Kittiphon Laengthaisong - notability

Our article on Kittiphon Laengthaisong claims he made a single appearance in the Thai first division in 2018. Is there a reliable source, not Transfermarkt, that can confirm this? Hack (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've cross referenced the matches that Transfermarkt claims this player either started or was on the bench that season with Soccerway, and the only player that exactly matches the one start and three bench appearances is Senee Kaewnam.[21][22][23][24] Soccerway has Kaewnam wearing squad number 2, which is what Transfermarkt claims Laenthaisong wore in those games. Gricehead (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

John Collins (footballer, born 1949)

Collins also sadly died. I've done some cleanup, I wanted to ask if anyone able to find the Kidderminster league stats for him at all. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion patterns

Looks like several FIFA articles are having problems due to recent edits which transclude sections that define named references. Great care must be taken when transcluding sections that define named references so that the references are correctly defined in each article, visible in each section, and don't share reference names (so they don't cause duplicate reference errors).

I've just fixed China at the FIFA Women's World Cup, which had several duplicate reference errors after a few sections were converted to use transclusion. Recent changes to Norway at the FIFA Women's World Cup, New Zealand at the FIFA Women's World Cup, United States at the FIFA Women's World Cup, and United States at the CONCACAF Gold Cup are causing similar issues, so this problem has some breadth.

My fixes required making changed to 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup knockout stage, 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup Group D, 1991 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A, 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup knockout stage, and China at the FIFA Women's World Cup itself.

I took the simple approach: I removed named references and replaced them with repeated ref definitions that are unnamed. This guarantees that the necessary reference appears where it is used, even if that section is included. The negative side-effect is that references are repeated again and again in the "References" section of the article.

It's clear that the project wants to use a complicated mechanism of transclusion to share sections of articles in different contexts. Has any thought been given to the issues of referencing those sections? What pattern should be followed here? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution would be to include the templatename or significant part thereof in the refname. Then there can be no duplicates. Agathoclea (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sad news

I just saw Norman Hunter died from Covid-19. Could you please keep an eye on the page for vandalism. JMHamo (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've put it on my watchlist. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

k, another heads-up, as it's also appears to be nominated for ITN. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Woodford Town

I've come across a umber of clubs by this name and they're a mess, and I'm hoping somebody with more knowledge of non-league can assist.

• Woodford Town F.C., formed in 2007 following a merger of other clubs, went through other various names before becoming 'Woodford Town' in 2016/2017;
• Woodford Town F.C. (2007), also formed in 2007, has merged with others and now known as Bush Hill Rangers F.C.;
• Woodford Town F.C. (1937), between 1937 and 2003; and
• I think there is also an earlier Woodford Town based on Harry Stapley who apparently played for a club of that name in the early 1900s.

Any help? GiantSnowman 13:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the articles are correct as they are (I've had some involvement in trying to sort this out previously when someone involved in the current Woodford tried to claim the history of the original one). There have been (at least) three clubs that held the name – the original founded in 1937 (folded c. 2003), the one that's now known as Bush Hill Rangers (was Woodford Town from 2015 to 2016), and one that was renamed Woodford Town in 2017 (they were initially called "Woodford Town 2017" but dropped the 2017, presumably as the Bush Hill Rangers one had changed name). No idea about the early 1900s one though. Number 57 14:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ali Mohsen

There's a problem about him : In English, he played for Egypt (1 cap) whereas he came from Aden (now in Yemen) and in french, he played for Yemen (whereas Yemen exists since 1990). Have you got informations about National team. Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an odd sitution as Arabic Wikipedia simultaneously claims he played one match for Egypt (in 1962 rather than 1961) but also that refused to give up his Yemeni citizenship to become Egyptian. The situation is further complicated by two other factors – firstly, in the early 1960s (when he was apparently capped), what became North Yemen was the only country to be called Yemen (Yemen Arab Republic) as South Yemen (where he was actually from) didn't come into existence until the late 1960s – and secondly, according to their respective articles, North and South Yemen national teams didn't exist until 1965.

I wonder if the 'cap' is in reference to his appearance in the Egytian select side that played Real Madrid in 1961 (which is mentioned in the intro to his article)? Anyway, without any sources, it should probably just be removed for now. Number 57 13:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

National-football-teams has him as an Egypt international in 1961, though they don't specify how many games he has played. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Full-back or full back?

What should we use in a player's infobox? Full-back or full back (as well as right-back or right back, etc.)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fullback? Ngrams suggests that's the most common form, although that may be due to its use like that in other sports. Number 57 22:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't think rightback and leftback are used. Fullback seems to be more used in American football (or regarding the car...). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources disagree:

* Full-back: Collins Dictionary, BBC,

* Fullback: Macmillan, Cambridge Dictionary, Pons,

* Full back: Learner's Dictionary. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The hyphen seems the favoured form. A quick unscientific survey finds it used by the the FA, BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and other British newspapers, as well as in published books on football. Probably all are valid, though. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely "full-back", although I'm sure incorrect use has changed the figures over the years. – PeeJay 10:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Youth clubs and/or assistant in manager's infobox?

What clubs should be displayed in the infobox for a football manager? Only senior, or also youth clubs? And also, only if he was the head coach, or also assistant? Basically, are the following scenarios accepted?

1. Head coach of youth club team (Juventus U19)
2. Head coach of youth national team (Italy U19)
3. Assistant coach of senior club team (Juventus)
4. Assistant coach of youth club team (Juventus U19)
5. Assistant coach of senior national team (Italy)
6. Assistant coach of youth national team (Italy U19)

Thanks in advance. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, we've been too strict with this for far too long and I would allow all of the above. – PeeJay 18:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What about "technical assistants" and "goalkeeper coaches", should those also be included? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If it were up to me, yes. – PeeJay 19:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Head coach of a youth team? Yes. Other role? No - at least not without changing the fundamental formatting/display of the 'management' section of the infobox. GiantSnowman 19:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No for other roles aswell. Head coach of a youth team, meh not sure about that. National team i would go with yeah, can be included, same for assistants. Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So yes to all head coach roles, no to all assistant coach roles (other that for a NT)? Seems a bit arbitrary to include assistant coaches of NTs and not of clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think on average what I've seen is inclusion of head coaches at any level, and assistant coaches of senior clubs or senior national teams. I think assistant coaches for youth teams rarely is an issue as they're usually not notable enough for an article anyways. --SuperJew (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Err no I didn't say include assistance for national teams! GiantSnowman 06:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My answer was in response to @Kante4. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I would leave out all assistant roles. So in short, just head coaches. Kante4 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I got confused by "can be included, same for assistants". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but the current coach of the Lebanon women's NT has been an assistant coach for the Atletico Mineiro U19s. This coach in particular has been the head (and assistant) coach of very notable youth teams around the world, and is now notable due to him being the coach of a senior NT. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's where I come down on it. Although being an assistant coach doesn't confer notability (by our standards), not all head coaches are head coaches their entire coaching careers, and while some assistant coaches never aspire to the top job, theirs is still a position often occupied by head coaches on their way there. I think it makes more sense to chart a coach's entire coaching career, not just the periods when they're in the hot seat as head coach. – PeeJay 20:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The same way we show players' youth clubs, we should also show managers' assistant coaching roles. In my opinion, we should include all positions (head coach, assistant coach, GK coach, etc.) in all clubs (senior and youth, club and NT). If the person has a Wikipedia page it's because they are notable on their own (ex-player, or head coach, who satisfies WP:NFOOTY, or WP:GNG), so I see no issue in including all the steps in their coaching career. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. I understand the point brought up here which are for. The point against I would say is that it can be hard to trace minor coaching roles, and leads to incomplete information (I find that often also with youth clubs players played for). I would say that in the infobox we do not show all the data of the player - for example displaying caps and goals only for domestic league matches (not including cup or continental matches). Either way, this should be documented in a MoS and to be consistent across the project. --SuperJew (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

When we are saying head coach are we talking about the manager or the top-ranked coach? It's an ambiguous term. Hack (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure on the difference. By head coach I mean what Pep Guardiola is to Manchester City. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Flags for goalscorers at 1973 Oceania Cup

The article for the 1973 Oceania Cup - at the anachronistically titled 1973 OFC Nations Cup - has the Tahiti flag of 1984 showing instead of the French flag, also used by New Caledonia. Having two teams using the same flag makes the goalscoring section confusing so I was just wondering how this issue was solved on other articles. Hack (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't some part of MOS:FLAG indicate that the flags shouldn't be used in isolation in that section anyway.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, scrub that, it seems the country name only has to accompany the flag the first time it is used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The list of goalscorers should be sorted alphabetically by nation then surname/common name so that should help avoid confusion as at least New Zealand/New Hebrides at least would be between the two. I think the hue of the blue on the New Caledonia flag is slightly darker than the French Polynesian equivalent but I don't know why, I've seen it that way on other articles and the flagicon template accommodates it (use {{flagicon|TAH|1946}} and {{flagicon|NCL|1853}} for and ). The current French Polynesian flag shouldn't be used for Tahiti because it wasn't adopted until 1984. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there are dark and light versions of the French flag. Wikipedia defaults to the light colour. {{flagicon|NCL|french}} shows the lighter version . Hack (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's weird. I wonder why New Caledonia has the dark version as an option but Tahiti doesn't. The years aren't interchangeable, they just default to the current flags if you switch them round. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's to do with the Country data templates: {{Country data New Caledonia}} has four parameters (other than the default), with "french" and "1853" showing different versions of the french flag (current and old, respectively). {{Country data Tahiti}} has only one parameter (1946) showing the current Flag of France. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the Tahiti flag, and added a tooltip in brackets distinguishing between TAH (Tahiti) and NCL (New Caledonia). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)