Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FOOTY)
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Women's World CupEdit

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

Sounds like a good idea. For those going, are there many people or places that need photos? Hack (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a dynamic list of women footballers who are notable for an article but don't have one yet (or it is very minimal) here. I added redlinked WWC players too while working on the squads page. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
2019 FIFA Women's World Cup squads is also good for the current players with no articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames againEdit Trying to get this project to come up with simple guidelines is a waste of time, but when is an initialism a nickname and just a way for sports writers to save space? The ManU article has what I think are dubious "nicknames" and this editor is relying on them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This editor doesn't even have the decency to ping me - always showing disregard for the editors around here. Please see User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee#Nickname fields discussed and also Talk:York 9 FC. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked you to start the discussion and you refused so why would I ping you? Besides, I knew you'd stalk me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because it involves our discussion? Obviously I watch the page, not you, it's about the common courtesy which you obviously lack. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I suggested you were a stalker. Glad you're watching the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the "short name" and "nickname" parameters are, rightly, separate. I honestly don't see the issue in adding an acronym or, indeed, a short name in the short name parameter. Also, the Manchester United article is FA, so I'm guessing that there has been consensus regarding this. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about separation of the fields as they are distinct, but the question is: is an initialism an actual nickname or short name for a club? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If an 'initialism' or 'acronym' is used in the common media and by the club as a nickname, then it should be considered as such here as well. I haven't searched about the others, but this is the case with regards to TFC and Y9. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I might be interpreting this wrongly, but isn't the issue regarding the use of TFC as a short name for Toronto FC, or of MUFC as a short name for Manchester United F.C.? The nicknames are "The Reds" for the former and "The Red Devils" for the latter, I'm not seeing the issue. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That is an entirely correct interpretation. The issue is that TFC is not a short "name", rather, it's their initials. It's as if we would state that the short name of the "President of the United States" is "POTUS" just because press and media use it, or that "HRH" is the short name of "Her Royal Highness", or "EPL" for English Premier League. On the other hand, FIFA is the common name of "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" and should be listed as an abbreviation, and NASA is more common than "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" and if its template had a short name field, that would be used there. In my line of work we frequently use abbreviations (i18n and l10n are two of the more obscure) and so I'm aware of when they are used as substitutes as opposed to saving time. While initials are shorthand for a topic, they are not short names and certainly not nicknames. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how it applies in this case, but I think the initials are sometimes used as a shortname, e.g. QPR and WBA. I think these are different than MUFC or THFC in that these latter two wouldn't be used in a newspaper article, but the former two would.   Jts1882 | talk  14:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Woodford TownEdit

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

I would say: One article covering Haringey & Waltham and the current version of Woodford Town (as it's the same club, just renamed) which should be at Woodford Town F.C. due to its recent rename, one for the original Woodford Town at Woodford Town F.C. (1937), and one for Woodford Town F.C. (2012) covering the Bush Hill Rangers version (2012 being the year of its foundation). Number 57 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - should the re-formed Bush Hill Rangers should be factored into the 2012 article, even though they are now in the Herts league? And is it right not to have one article for continuity when this has been for other clubs, e.g. Darlington, Edgware Town (and probably a few others)? OGLV (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is much continuity here – the current version is a separate club that was around at the same time as the 2012 version (under a different name at the time). Number 57 21:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The FCHD regards the current club as the continuation of the last two, and Bush Hill Rangers as the continuation of the club that changed its name in 2015. Woodford's website has a similar narrative. OGLV (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
With the overlap, it might be best to have three separate articles, named Wolford Town F.C. (1937–2003), Wolford Town F.C. (2007–16), and Wolford Town F.C. (for the current one). SounderBruce 22:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The correct naming format would be Wolford Town F.C. (1937), Wolford Town F.C. (2007) and Wolford Town F.C. (2012). GiantSnowman 15:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian state championship yearEdit

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

@Worldbruce: definitely notable, the state championships are a big deal in Brazil (which didn't have a national league until the 1960s) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved out from draft. But personally i think it need improvement. e.g. add more citation such as news article (even offline one). But at least 1914 Campeonato Carioca seem better and more complete than 1987–88 Luxembourg National Division (see Talk:1987–88 Luxembourg National Division for the issue). Matthew hk (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(Side note) I already know the quality of some Luxembourg Football articles aren't that good, and I am aiming to improve them where possible assuming there's something online that can confirm/deny what's already there. --Philk84     14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Palestine, British Mandate?Edit

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

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

Notability of articleEdit

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

These types of articles do exist - Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent was a Featured List - but I see no evidence that the Melbourne City FC example is worthy. GiantSnowman 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you think this might fall under Too Soon? Also, it doesn’t show the FFA Cup, but does show what their Youth team has done at NPL level. - J man708 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I think it OK. Leave it be or add to it. ClubOranjeT 12:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Premier League team of the season graphicsEdit

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

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

I would just remove the colour altogether. The teams can be seen in the table, so I don't think it's necessary to tamper with the names on the graphic. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Colours are complete fluff. They clearly cause an WP:ACCESS issue, and the club colours aren't all that helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Definitely remove. The colours can't be used to identify a specific club in most cases (players from multiple clubs that wear blue or red in the same team) so are purely decorative -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Table does it, image is DECORATIVE, and the whole thing with the names just make it more so.
Plus the first one I looked at I thought only had nine players until I looked closer and could make out a couple of Man City players. And that Pogba one, with black on red is equally hard to read. ClubOranjeT 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Should we just remove the graphic and make the table usage consistent or keep them in there with plain black text? I would support the former. Spike 'em (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
My eyes hurt looking at that. I would remove the graphic. Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I would remove the graphic from the season pages and add it (with normal black text) into the single PFA TOTY pages, in the same way the Serie A TOTY does it. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving a categoryEdit

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

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

International career datesEdit

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

For me, the dash should be removed after 1 year of inactivity. If he were to be called up again after 1, 2 or 8 years then the dash should be put back. I say 1 year because it's the "limit" for the "recent results and matches", and therefore of the "recent call-ups", section of the national team pages. While this is only my opinion, I think it's the most logical solution to this. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If it was me, I'd put in the years from first cap to latest cap, and update it if they play again in a subsequent year. That way the dates would always be complete and up to date However, I recognise that I am likely to be within the minority on this, despite how logical I feel this approach is. ClubOranjeT 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's what I do too when a player has retired. The "dash" to indicate a player being active though should be removed after 1 year I think. If a player stops playing in 2017, and after one year he still hasn't been called up, I would put 2008–2017 one year after his last call up and 2008– between 2017 and 2018. I'm not sure if I have made myself clear. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Edit: I realized now that you would opt to remove the "year1–" altogether and just stick to a "year1–year2", updating the year2 in case the player is called up in following years. I would be against that since we don't put 2018–2019 to the club years once a player signs for a club in 2018 and plays in 2019. If I were to read 2008–2019 for an international player, I would assume the player played an international match this year and (explicitly) retired internationally the same year. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Club is different, a player has an ongoing contract, so the information is verifiably correct. With International, you never know if a player will ever be called up again. With circa 200 countries, 2/3 of which have women's teams as well, so that's say 350 squads of 20+ players, just taking the last squad call up, so 15000 article potentially. You could almost easily double or triple that with the players that have been called up years ago but not since. That's a lot of articles with potentially wrong or misleading information. You know you have a problem when you find a player who's been dead for some years but their international career still says 2008-. Or a player who is now 42, but hasn't been capped since she was 23, but hasn't announced retirement. How long until you close it off?
With first cap date/last cap date as they happen, the information is always correct and verifiable, which is probably a good thing for an outfit claiming to be an encyclopaedia.
As for what readers might assume, which one should never do, because when you make an assumption you make an ass out of u and umption That is easily fixed by tweaking the note at the bottom of the infobox. ClubOranjeT 07:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say one year without a call-up is a decent cut off point, based on the logic that that is where the national team pages recent results end. Otherwise I'd say maybe 3 years, but that would be a arbitrary figure.--EchetusXe 06:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags - againEdit

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

Consensus formed by a WikiProject's members, if that is indeed correct, doesn't supersede a guideline, in this case WP:MOSFLAG. That's not to mention that the flags are *entirely* unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the discussion we had before said MOS:SPORTFLAGS contradicts that. Whatever you think, you shouldn't have made such a major change on multiple articles unilaterally Jopal22 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
They give false prominence to the nationality and I fully support what he is doing. The flag is far more prominent than the club team, which actually is important in these tables. Spike 'em (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG supersedes all indeed. If this makes it not conform to other nationalities, they should then also follow the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We've been through this before and it was evident that it was okay to have flag icons next to football players to represent their federation country. I don't know why Mattythewhite is going through removing all the flags, this big issue was discussed before and consensus was to keep for football players so to change without discussion seems very unproductive. I would prefer the flag icons be restore for all the footballers. It was also evident that flag icons shouldn't be used for managers. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
We've certainly been through it all before, and some people have certainly felt very strongly that having a flag against a footballer's name regardless of context is more important than following the MoS, but I'm not sure that a small group of editors on an individual project can make such a decision. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There as been a long history of discussion around this, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 13 and various other places. One user shouldn't impose their interpretation ignoring all the discussion that have gone on before Jopal22 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, this again. Recommend these all be reverted per WP:BOLD and then consensus formed before these flags are removed as it's not something I support. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, it's ridiculous how often we have to keep going through this. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: can you please make sure to check the edit history fully before reverting changes. On one of the Premier League articles you reverted an edit of mine which had nothing to do with flags -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yeah, sorry about that, my bad. There were a couple others with more recent edits that I think I fixed (plus one with two more recent edits, one of which was reverting the other, so I didn't bother with that one and just restored the last good copy.) Smartyllama (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to revert Jopal22 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree @Smartyllama:. Some editors don't seem to have any regard for the project's MoS or policies. Unfortunately you appear to be one of them. Next time you mass revert my edits, would you mind only reverting the relevant bits, instead of hours worth of other improvements including copy edits and reference formatting? Ta. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I have read MOS:SPORTFLAG as recommended in your edit summaries. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing that supports including flags *without* accompanying country names, as laid out by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. I hope I have missed something, as I'd hate to think that you would be disingenuous when citing a MoS in 20+ edit summaries. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smartyllama:, I have just noticed that you accused me of "vandalism" in numerous edit summaries. Could you please substantiate that claim? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Matty, The MoS is out of date, alt-code covers country name which passes WP:ACCESS. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I still don't get why a player's nationality is so pertinent to a *club* competition. Even if they were, they should be sourced and presented alongside the names of the countries, in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
For example in league competitions where foreign transfer regulations are a factor, I think that knowing weather or not a player is local or not to the league is relevant (such as in the Chinese Super League). Nehme1499 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it all getting a bit silly now with the most recent flag additions? Surely we only need to see the flag once against a players name in an article and not every time that player is mentioned? How many French flags does it take to work out Thierry Henry is.......French?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Not everyone reads the whole page. It's very likely someone might, for example, be just looking at the top scorers section without having seen a previous section in which the person was already mentioned. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If people really want to know where someone is from, they can make use of the link to the player's article.Spike 'em (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Something being helpful isn't an inclusion criteria. I always think it just is WP:ILIKEIT, rather than what MOS:FLAG states, which is that flags need to display something. International competitions? fine. Player biographies are depreciated. These articles seem to only have flags for managers (which is completely irrelevant), and players nationalities. However, none of this information is ever mentioned in the prose, so flags should have zero baring on the readability of an article. Someone like The Rambling Man is an expert on the whole flag/MOS thing though, so I've pinged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I am the MOSboss. Especially at flags. If people are actively editing against the advice of MOS then they should be advised to desist. I am happy to help in specific instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
That part of the MOS has been out of date for a while. You've been told that already. We no longer need to write out country names because the alt-text should take care of that. (On that note, perhaps someone should actually update that part of the MOS.) Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
What we can't do is declare a particular bit of MoS out-of-date or otherwise inappropriate just because one random editor says so. If you believe that there's no longer any need to write out country names at first use, please propose that change at the relevant MoS talk page. If you achieve a new consensus for that change, all well and good. But until someone gets that change implemented, we go by the existing site-wide consensus as reflected in the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Top scorer for national team honour?Edit

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

Goalden boot for a competitive sanctioned international tournament is an award. So yes to your first. Top score for your secon...the history of the tournament, is not, and will change over time, but would typically be mentioned in the records and statistics section/article for the competition. ClubOranjeT 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I’m not talking about being the top scorer of a competition, rather of being the player of his country with the most goals in that competition. So if he has 2 goals and no one else in his country has ever scored more than one in that competition, would that be considered an honour/achievement or not? Nehme1499 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say definitely not for the "single edition of the tournament" one. "Top scorer for Sweden at the 1978 World Cup" sounds way too trivial to me, especially given that the player in question top scored with one goal! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
What about “Top scorer for Lebanon at the AFC Asian Cup: 2 goals”? Or would that also be considered trivial? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not an honour in that section. With a source, it could go in the text as a casual mention. "He was selected for the Lebanon squad at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup and finished as the nation's top scorer with two goals from four matches", etc. Crowsus (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok that's what I imagined, thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we usually put it in an "Individual" section under honours. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate under Indidivual --> Performances or under Records --> Lebanon? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Nehme1499, Not. ClubOranjeT 13:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the CSL seasonal pagesEdit

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

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

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

I know, it's been discussed to death, but I can't find a clear definitive statement in the archive. There's a small bunch of Swiss IPs (possibly just one user) semi-regularly changing the squad-template flag of uncapped French-born players who have descent from another country, such as [1] and [2] (I reverted this one as it included other changes which were not in the source). The descent is referenced in the player articles in most cases. My understanding, from dealing mainly with English/Welsh and English/Irish players is that the flag stays with the country of birth until the player is capped at some level. I'm happy to be corrected. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case the player hasn’t stated a preference regarding his potential national team, I think the country of birth takes precedence over the one of origin. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to use POB, if he also had the nationality of that place. Some country would not automatically grant nationality to person born within the border of that country. While for descent, it would just led to argument as some French born African footballer, have multiple "place of origin" due to POB of his father and mother. Those footballers are French footballer until they made their debut for another country. Matthew hk (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
POB here. The players are French until they declare for/are capped by another country. GiantSnowman 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom HadlerEdit

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

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

Released playersEdit

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

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

Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994)Edit

Rampant vandalism, can the page be protected please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Player that signed but did not play any matchEdit

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

In my opinion, yes...? Crowsus (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If the player was never registered, then I'd say no. That's what we did with Alex Jones, who "signed" for Wellington Phoenix but the New Zealand Federation messed up the paperwork. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Signings are usually annnounced pending the paperwork. If the paperwork fails then the signing is never complete and the player never formally a part of the club. So I agree that shouldn't be in the infobox.   Jts1882 | talk  10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Manual of Style - FootballEdit

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

There are claimed MOS articles, but they are just outline examples rather than detailing what consensus exist. One point to make is that the Example Season HAS NO FLAGS! Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Just as fair warning, as someone from the Snooker wikiproject, the issue on flags came up regardless at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1, so having a MOS on flags (and the site wide one) doesn't solve all issues, for whatever reason. The Snooker MOS was also made a long time ago, and does need updating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The most valuable or Xth valuable per Y sourceEdit

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

A blanket ban of it isn't a good idea, it's possible that you could add the source with commentary but I don't recommend it. Certainly not in the lede, certainly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
There are countless wiki football pages that cite the CIES Football Observatory in body and lede. This isn't new. If, all of a sudden, somebody thinks CIES has "questionable notability" or isn't "appropriate" then the burden is on them to back up their claims with evidence. I have tried reaching out to Matthew hk and Mattythewhite on their talk pages after they reverted my edits. Still haven't received an explanation. BTW the phrase "most valuable player" came verbatim from the Forbes and Goal articles I cited in the edit. Retrofan781 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering player value is quite subjective and clearly changanle, it really shouldn't be in the lede of any articles. If it is, it should probably be removed. I've not looked at the source in question, but the term itself doesn't seem Lede worthy at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Most rankings and awards in sports are subjective and changeable, including Ballon d'Or, FIFA World Player of the Year, even statements like "greatest player of all time", "best player in the world" etc are quite subjective and changeable. Yet they have been used countless times in ledes. Please show me a rule that says ledes shouldn't contain subjective statements. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrofan781: Your claim that you did not receive an explanation from me is not true, see my reply. And you know that as it received a response from you. Anyway, I agree with the reasoning laid out by Matthew hk and Lee Vilenski, that this content should not be included given the questionable notability of CIES and the subjective nature of player values. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mattythewhite What explanation did I receive from you? The one that you yourself struck out? All you have done is change the goalpost, and refuse to explain your reasoning. In other words, you stated your opinion (blanket statement) while providing no logical explanation for why you deleted my content without following WP:normal protocol. If not, please post a link to said explanation. Retrofan781 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the claim that CIES has questionable notability is patently false. CIES is mandated by major organizations like FIFA, UEFA, City Football Group, IOC etc (Source). If CIES studies weren't noteworthy, they wouldn't routinely get published by major outlets like FIFA, UEFA, ESPN, Goal, Forbes, etc. I have already explained this to Matthew hk on his talk page, yet he hasn't responded to any of the points I made (read WP:Discuss with the other party), and continues to present this claim here without providing any facts to support it. Retrofan781 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
There would be a very long list of most valuable according to X source. The X could be OPTA, IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, etc., or just according to their actual transfer fee. Some of them have no doubt in notability to put it in main text and notable to add to the lede which lede should always act as a summary of the main text. However, the reporting of CIES' model , sometimes seem a sarcasm manner (See the blog entry of ESPN correspondent), which at least it is not a material on the lede. Moreover, CIES' ranking is dynamic, which is a nightmare if you insist to add it and then update the change in ranking (if any) each month. Based on these reason, CIES' ranking is a trivial content and don't have a merit to add it to the main body of the biographical article. While award (the first, the "most" award, if any) by IFFHS, Ballon d'Or, The Best FIFA Men's Player, at least they are static, (the best player award in X year did not change), which may merit to add to "award and honor" section. Matthew hk (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute on Trent Alexander-Arnold's pageEdit

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

I'm not a fan of anything saying "best in the world", without it being attributed to a specific source. But the idea of only defining it to a single season is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Are there any non-English writers who have made this assertion? I don't think the Liverpool Echo can be treated as a neutral source on this sort of claim. Spike 'em (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply: I will have a look for non-English writers and see what can be found. I think the Echo piece is iffy in any event and can probably be removed. It is supplemented by more reliable and impartial sources such as ESPN (US), the Guardian (UK) and now The Times. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The opinion expressed is clearly synthesis. Please either cite an organisation of merit that has identified him as such, or place the language in the voice of the people described. It is also not appropriate in the first few sentences and should be within the body of the article. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply What sort of organisations would qualify? And do you have any suggestions on how to make the voice apparent? I do, however, disagree that the placement is inappropriate. It is quite common for these statements to be included in the lede. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

UEFA Super CupEdit

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

Return to the project page "WikiProject Football".