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.

Famous fansEdit

Per a discussion going on over on the Manchester United talk page, the argument is generally boiling down to such lists as being crufty, or adding nothing and of no significant notability. As such they really should either demonstrate their notability to the subject in some way (valid examples being perhaps Delia Smith, Elton John, Cass Pennant and I am sure others) rather than simply being someone famous who happens to support a given team. My example, for comparison between subjects, is that "famous fans" is like the equivalent of "famous owners" of BMW 3 Series. I am sure it could be cited, but it is of no real significance. Comments and thoughts please. Koncorde (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this page; this comes up like clockwork. (I think this was the last time.) AFAIK consensus is that the fan needs to have have a demonstrable impact on the club; obviously the Delia Smiths and Elton Johns who were directly connected to the administration of the club, but also people like the Proclaimers at Hibs who wrote the club anthem and who significantly raised the club profile. What we don't do is laundry lists of every celebrity who's ever been photographed in a Barcelona shirt. ‑ Iridescent 21:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the FAQ requirement, and thanks for the search result. Clearly everytime it comes up I clearly miss it. I will look at an FAQ'ing template, as they are out there.
I was also failing at searching for the recent additions of Coefficients to some clubs, more ranking cruft not used for anything significant to the club (may be relevant in a given season at best). I know the conversation came up a few weeks back at longest. Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, we are here again, I've wanted to strip Arsenal F.C. supporters for a long time but people won't let me!! I am sure there are more articles like that I don't know about. This list-craft trivia pops up a lot. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, clearly needs a clean up across the board. I have never seen that Arsenal article before but it is genuinely atrocious stuff. I wouldn't even entertain a Category with that weak a rationale for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to have it! If there's a section of fans, why not mention famous ones? It's interesting, it's connected to club identity, and even clubs understand it and make sure to release the relevant pictures. It's part of football culture.

What's more interesting is that while you know that it's common practice to include names of celebrity fans, you support PeeJay in his edit war nonsense, when you know perfectly well there's no reason to remove such info. I mean, how many times has Govvy tried to remove the Arsenal article. I've seen two votes, both "keep", so get the hint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth having a full-scale WP:RFC. I have no doubt what the result would be, but it would put a stop to this once and for all, and give a firm policy-based justification for a mass cull of the "he has been photographed in an Airdrieonians shirt" nonsense. ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems may be the obvious conclusion. Maxim appears not to take the arguments on board. Koncorde (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not? Makes sense! It's about having a consistent rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Lists of celebrity fans of a club have no place in an encyclopedia. You wouldn't have a list of famous fans on an article about a band, and this is no different IMO. Apart from anything else, celebs are notorious for claiming to be fans of more than one club at the same time, changing their allegiance, or even not being able to remember which club they allegedly support *ahem*David Cameon*ahem* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Don't think such lists have a place here. RossRSmith (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude, celebrity fans of a band can be notable in Wikipedia terms, but in the same circumstances in which celebrity fans of a football (or any other sport) team are notable; when their support had a demonstrable and documented impact on the band. Kurt Cobain's being a fan of the deeply obscure Daniel Johnston, which created enough media interest in Johnston to turn him into a significant figure in his own right, is an example that springs to mind. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
That's true, maybe I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I concur that fans who actually had a significant impact on the club itself should be mentioned, but I definitely do not think we should have huge laundry lists of "any celebrity, however minor, who happened to once mention in passing that they support a team", in the same way that we wouldn't have "any celebrity, however minor, who happened to once mention in passing that they are a fan of the Beatles" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To those calling for an FAQ (@Iridescent and Koncorde: et al)- we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus which was intended to be exactly that. The issue is that nobody (myself included) updates it... GiantSnowman 08:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't just declare something a consensus; the issue is that we don't have a clear and unambiguous discussion in which it's explicitly affirmed that "Wikipedia does not care that the drummer from Showaddywaddy once mentioned Barnet F.C. in a 2006 interview". RFCs are a waste of time, but they create something we can point to in future. ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Also worth noting that other sports don't seem to suffer from this issue. I had a quick skim through some US sports team pages and couldn't find this level of obsession with "famous fans" e.g. nobody mentioned here is mentioned in the New York Yankees article as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
It's really only a British media phenomenon. We love a good celebrity fan, even better when the celeb is a foreigner who we can fawn over for being so enlightened as to like a given football team. Bonus points if it's also our team. I hear Barack Obama supports West Ham. I've never been more proud to be associated with a club associated with someone that reflects well on the perceived social value that individual grants me. Less interested if David Dickey is similarly a fan however. Although if separated by discrete points in time he might find it interesting. Koncorde (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Has Barack Obama ever been mentioned on the West Ham page itself? If he has I don't remember it. Several clubs have "...... F.C. supporters" pages but they are not articles on the club itself which is what is being discussed, I believe.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so, and I have no idea if the source is accurate.
And for the purposes of this discussion, I would suggest that it covers indiscriminate lists of people on those "supporters of" pages per WP:TRIVIA. Koncorde (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that clarification is needed then as until now we gave been taking about articles on the club itself and not the "supporters of" pages. If we plan to cull those we should specifically say so.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this is more about the lists, not the actual articles. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This is about the inclusion of any "fan" for a football club where there is no narrative or prose, and no significance to their inclusion. That goes for the club article, or any "supporters" articles which are weak subjects to start with (if there is really so much to write about them I do have to wonder how much of it is significant). Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, lets just get this over:

RFC: Celebrity fansEdit

Under what circumstances should a celebrity's professed support for a football team be mentioned in the article on that team? ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Include lists of supportersEdit

If reliable sources mention that a celebrity is a supporter of a particular club, that person should be included in a list of celebrity fans on the article on that club.

Only significant supporters in proseEdit

Supporters should only be mentioned in the article on the club when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list.

  1. Support ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support Govvy (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. SupportKosack (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support -- RossRSmith (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support -- Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support GiantSnowman 10:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support Drawoh46 (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. Support FkpCascais (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Support R96Skinner (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support Gricehead (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. SupportEagleash (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Support - Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  15. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  16. Support -- Jaellee (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


  1. Comment What is a 'material impact'? I'll give the example from my club, Exeter City F.C.. We are a supporter-owned club. People can support the majority shareholder, the Exeter City Supporters' Trust, by joining as members. In the early days of the trust, much of the money raised by trust members was used to buy the club. Is it fair to say that a trust member now has a material impact? How about a trust member back in May 2003? Domeditrix (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think in the case of a club like Exeter the ring leader of said organisation may be notable, and in particular the entire entity of the supporters trust itself is notable and should be mentioned (and may in and of itself be notable enough for its own article within which some more notable fans may be listed).
Clubs in the end may recognise certain fans, groups etc such as the JFT96, and may then recognise individual fans, but that should be tackled within the prose / narrative and not just a list of every JFT96 member (nor every single shareholder of Exeter). In fact most shareholders of clubs are not listed directly on the articles as is. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. Comment Question - are we considering lists of supporters which appear in the article on a team as well as such lists which might appear in articles on the supporters of the club such as that in Everton F.C. supporters, West Ham United F.C. supporters, Arsenal F.C. supporters and others? --Egghead06 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The wording of this RfC deals only with how named supporters of a team should be "mentioned in the article on that team". I'd understand that as meaning it wouldn't cover separate articles such as West Ham United F.C. supporters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless there is criteria for inclusion on those other articles then they are WP:TRIVIA in any case. Koncorde (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
But then the "what this guideline is not" portion of WP:TRIVIA does not advocate the removal of such lists, in fact the contrary.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely not "the contrary". The "list" trivia in question is assumed to be notable information, bit not necessarily notable enough for the primary article. It is thus trivia which is generally avoided. When the trivia content is formed (as most Supporters sections have been) then this is a fine example of a Trivia Article. Later it is discussed as;
"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all. Trivia that cannot be integrated at all should be removed."
The main policy of WP:TRIVIA dovetails into WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, ALL OF which effectively are existing policy that doesn't require an RFC such as this to be used to identify such extraneous information. Given I have had no idea such a webpage as West Ham Utd Supporters when I contributed the significant majority of content to the main club article and history should convey also one of the biggest issues with forking of content.
"Trivia articles are especially problematic, because their existence makes it much harder to solve the original problem about the relevance of the trivia fact in relation to the subject. Whereas ordinary editors can delete sections of articles, they can't delete articles. Editors can move articles, but most editors will not be as bold in moving articles as they would in restructuring within an article. Compounding this, when an article is split up, it may be hard to get other users involved in discussion or efforts to make improvements: the talk page of the trivia article is often very low-activity, but on the talk page of the main article, editors may not care to address the trivia article. Trivia articles are often abandoned by editors in a way that trivia sections are not: in order to stem the tide of constant trivia additions, editors may simply fork the trivia section out to another page, and let it exist there."
Such forks are thus mostly an anomaly of trying to adhere to one policy, but the subsequent forks running under the radar and giving the impression of tacit approval. Koncorde (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA also says "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." A selective, populated and referenced list of supporters in an article about supporters is not trivial to that subject which is the very definition of a narrow theme. That is the very reason these supporters articles exist, to fork from the main article and expand on a narrow theme.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem arises when you see articles such as Arsenal F.C. supporters where over 90% of the references are for famous fans. The article is no longer "Arsenal F.C. supporters", rather it's a "List of famous Arsenal F.C. supporters". Remove the list and the article shrinks to a small fraction of the size. The list is also not so much selective as indiscriminate, particular when some claims of a celebrity being a fan amount to no more than the person attending a single match at their ground. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that there is not an inherent notability as a subject for being a fan of something. For instance, I like Bacon. Lots of people like Bacon. Many famous people who have Wikipedia articles will have some opinion on the matter too. So do we create "list of bacon fans" in the main article, then when it gets too long fork it into another article in order to keep it out of the main article? Or do we recognise that the initial list is likely irrelevant trivia, and that any forking is therefore indiscriminate.
For example: A subsection on pork about religions that object to or forbid the consumption of pig related products (or in fact a lot of animals but pigs always are the focus) such as Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork may require forking. However this new article is also not a place for an indiscriminate list for people who are followers of a faith that will not consume pork (nor is Faith Bacon).
However the founding fathers of the The United Church of Bacon may be narratively worthy of inclusion in an article about a their specific faith, but you still wouldn't list the potentially billions of adherents to their tenets because that would just be an indiscriminate directory of trivia.
Hopefully that makes it clear. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
People don't generally support Bacon though do they? They don't fly from one side of the world to the other to watch the Bacon Cup Final, play guitars with Bacon badges on them or have the bacon company manager's image tattooed on their legs. Supporters of football clubs do all these things. The problem with the 'it's all trivia' approach is that baby gets thrown out with the bath water. In West Ham's case Russell Brand writes and talks on the subject. Ray Winstone makes videos and does ad campaigns on the team, Cockney Rejects sing about the club, Steve Harris plays instruments with the club badge. These are people for whom the support of the club is significant. By all means delete those names as in the Arsenal F.C. supporters article where the individual's support amounts to no more than a Tweet saying 'hey, bro I'm going to the game today' but dismissing support as all trivial is an easy option. Far more correct, and yes more difficult!, would be to go through the lists and weed out the superficial supporters and leave those where their support has formed a part of their lives. Do we try and produce a proper list or crash out with no list at all? --Egghead06 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point on bacon, but what about fans of the band The Foo Fighters. There are plenty of famous fans around, and some fans will have written books on the topic (that may be used for citations) – but it doesn't extend beyond that. Also, could we perhaps have a backstop of sorts to prevent crashing out? A category (For example, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. supporters) would preserve the information and make it easier to find notable fans of certain clubs, while preventing it from spilling out into articles where that information doesn't truly belong. Domeditrix (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not? We already have Category:Millwall supporters.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
If it's significant to the person it goes in their article. If I am a fan of bacon, that may be significant and notable to me. I might have written books on it. I might play in a bacon themed band. However the idea that this then warrants inclusion as a raw list of people in a football article isn't equally relevant or notable.
Per my opening statement to this whole section; there are opportunities to include significant supporters within prose, but it should not merely be an "X likes Y" inclusion criteria.
Also, you should be careful when dismissing just how crazy people really are. There are millions of people that travel the world each year in pursuit of strange and unusual hobbies (both obscure and well known). That some people somehow seem to think the support of a football team is inherently notable is a massive bias by football loving people. For instance, the World Food Championships host a Bacon World Championship, Australia meanwhile hosts their own. Some of the people create their own websites. Meanwhile it is significant enough to spawn World Food Championships (TV series) and attract skiers to a Bacon Appreciation Day in Aspen. Per the comments by someone else in this thread: this urge to list fans of a particular club is very specific to a very niche part of Wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
In the very modern way the cull has already begun and list removed from the North London No Bacon article with no consensus or discussion so baby is out with the water. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Unclear inclusion criteria is unclear. If an "in popular culture" section etc or similar trivia section existed, or their notability as a supporter is established then they could find a way of being included narratively. But just a list is pointless cruft. Koncorde (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It's moot now. There is no support for lists of supporters and they are being deleted as trivia and after all, trivia is trivial.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Struway2: Why wouldn't it cover the supporter articles, that's still an article of that team, but being more specific to the supporters of that team! Sounds clear enough to me that it would cover the lists, if a celebrity says they support a football club, I'd rather keep that to the "personal" section on their article. If people are really so interested, could always have a category instead of something like Category:Arsenal F.C. supporters. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All I said was that the wording of the RfC only covered the main club article, which it clearly does. That doesn't stop people extending their discussion to related articles, and trying to reach consensus on what to do with them as well. But I'd assume that the polling above only applied to the original wording of the RfC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. Comment I would consider supporter trusts and the elected chair to be a notable prose as long as it's sourced. As for those list of celeb supporters, from all the supporter articles above, I am taking this as consensus to strip these lists from those articles. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No such consensus exists. It could be created but as far as I can tell, of those editors commenting on the supporters articles, they are not covered by this Rfc. That's the very reason I asked if they were.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Have the editors who have been involved in writing those lists been notified of this discussion? The overwhelming consensus against such lists might be because only one side has been asked.   Jts1882 | talk  11:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be reasonable to drop a note in the talk pages of football club articles particularly in the supporters articles (but only those with such lists) informing them of such a discussion. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No, we haven't, I have just seen it by accident.
The ones to argue against it and start these debate have lost votes on Arsenal supporters article and a few more, attempting to delete them.
Perhaps not that relevant if the supporters articles are not included in this discussion. I guess someone can start a different one on those articles. Hzh (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a part of club identity - Be it Noel and Liam with their famous "Brother" City shirts or Sting taking part in fan protests, celebrity fans are, as the name argues, the famous fans of the club, and it plays a role in how the club is portrayed in the media. What is interesting is that User:Koncorde stalks me on Wiki and reverts my edits. As a new Wiki member, I feel there are a few "older" members who take it a bit too seriously and go on power trips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
1. I informed you in particular about this discussion on the Man Utd talk page when this started in order to head off your arguments about Arsenal.
2. I hardly have to stalk anyone, you are the only one adding these sections at the moment. I am more than happy to discuss the relative merits, but as a new wiki member you should discuss your changes and learn what consensus means, and what the significance of these discussions are.
3. The argument to delete The Arsenal Supporters article is different to removing lists of known fans. At the time when the discussion to delete the article took place it had just been forked from the main Arsenal article a decade ago. The decision was a weak keep with no overarching rationale, and even less actual discussion of what sections would be relevant. But at that time several sections were tagged by editors as trivia. Since then people have continued to dump more and more names in. Indiscriminate lists of people are not supported by Wikipedia. As the suggestions above: go create a category, but know that there are criteria for even those that must be adhered to "people on Wikipedia who support a particular football club" may even then be too vague.
I do not doubt that Sting and Jimmy Nail joining a protest against Ashley is vaguely notable, but it really isn't anything to do with the main club article and is just news. It might have a relevance in individual season articles, or summaries of protests as part of the History of Newcastle Utd. It has less relevance in a "supporters" section of an article and is just an attempt to weasel in a few people. Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

2013/14 Iraqi Premier LeagueEdit

A couple of months ago there was a discussion here about whether Al-Shorta should be listed as champions of the 2013/14 Iraqi league because there were contradicting sources (here). It was decided they should not because we could not verify that the Iraqi FA awarded them the title, and that we should simply make a note of the dispute among sources.

Since our discussion ended, the Iraqi FA has clarified the situation via its Competitions Committee Chairman, Ali Jabbar. First, he was asked to clarify the situation by someone who filmed his response (here), he said: "The championship was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligibility and therefore is considered to be the champion, but not crowned". Note this appears to be someone just walking up to Jabbar and asking him the question rather than any sort of official statement.

Later that day, Jabbar did make a statement to the Almaalomah news agency, presumably to clarify the situation further (here). He said this: "The Competitions Committee had cancelled the Iraqi Football Premier League for the season 2014 because of the occupation of the terrorist group ISIS over a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was nearing completion and Al-Shorta was leading the tournament at the time, therefore Al-Shorta is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season 2014."

Since we were looking for official verification from the Iraqi FA regarding this, I assumed the above was certainly enough to verify that Al-Shorta were named champions by the Iraqi FA seeing as the Chairman of the Competitions Committee unambiguously stated this in his statement to Almaalomah agency. Therefore I was going to make the necessary changes on Wikipedia, however, User:Steel Dogg disagrees with me because he says that in the video, Jabbar saying they were 'not crowned' means they were not champions. My response to that is that he says Al-Shorta are champions twice beforehand so by saying 'not crowned' he was most likely referring to the fact that there was no trophy awarding ceremony/celebrations held due to the circumstances of war ending the league early but that Al-Shorta were still considered champions for the season. The fact he didn't mention anything about crowning in the actual statement to Almaalomah makes it even more likely that this is what he was referring to - if he was meaning this to say Al-Shorta weren't champions he would've mentioned it in the statement rather than saying Al-Shorta were champions. Alternatively he could be meaning that they weren't crowned at the time but now it Is a retrospective awarding of the title. Either way you interpret this, it's undeniable that Al-Shorta is the champion for the 2014 season because he literally said it himself!

So basically I ask people here at WP:FOOTY to let me know if they think changes should be made on Wiki to say Al-Shorta were the champions in light of the Iraqi FA statements. Personally I would be baffled if we were to say on Wikipedia there was no champion despite the Iraqi FA themselves clearly saying that Al-Shorta were champions in the most recent statement they've made on the subject, so I hope we come to a consensus about this. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

From what I have read from you, and if the statements are correct, it's obvious that Al-Shorta should be considered champions (if the people making the statements are people with a certain authority within the Iraqi FA). Obviously I would like to hear @Steel Dogg's opinion too. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Hashim-afc takes one bit of information from there and others from there. The article he mentions is based on the clip from Ali Jabar and if there was any official statement from the FA (which there wasn't) it would have been on their website and their facebook page (check it out, nothing mentioned on July 24). The title champions is based on rankings, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th - and not being crowned champions is clearly said by Ali Jabar. the Iraqi FA had to nominate teams to be eligible to play in competitions abroad which is why Al-Shurta were handed first position, Arbil (2nd), Baghdad (3rd) and Al-Jawiya (4th) - clearly stated in the FA's press release at the time but conveniently not mentioned by Hashim-AFC.
This discussion started in July and I provided evidence in the form of articles, statements and even mentions in a book. Same thing happened in the 1984-85, 2002-03 and 2003-04 seasons. League was abandoned and no winner declared. In each of those league seasons, the IFA decided to admit the leaders to the Asian club competitions and I can't see how it's different in these cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel Dogg (talkcontribs) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
"The article he mentions is based on the clip from Ali Jabar" - this is a completely baseless claim Steel Dogg. The quotes from the article are different to the video and include things he never even mentioned in the video, plus the article says "Ali Jabbar told Almaalomah". So he made the statement to Almaalomah and is not related to the video.
"The title champions is based on rankings, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th" - where does Ali Jabbar say anything like that in the quotes above? Look at the parts I highlighted in bold. He said Shorta are champions for the season and did not mention anything about final positions for continental tournaments. You put words into his mouth to suit your information. When he said 'not crowned' I already suggested the most likely meaning for this and it makes no sense for him to say Shorta were the champion a few words before and then say they weren't champion.
I already talked about the FA's press releases in 2014 in our original discussion which I linked at the top. The FA's statements contradicted each other at the time, some said Shorta were champions but others said there was no champion. But that was five years ago and now in 2019 the FA through Ali Jabbar has clarified the situation and verified that Al-Shorta are champions via the Almaalomah quote above. What's the point of asking for the FA to clarify it if when they do, you just ignore it and go back to what they said in 2014? (which already was contradictory). Additionally there is the possibility that the FA now acknowledges the title in retrospect so we should be looking at the most recent statements they made regarding the season. You're talking about how the FA statement should be on their Facebook page, none of the quotes you are posting from 2014 are on their Facebook page or their website but are from statements made to news agencies just like Almaalomah so what is the difference? The IFA does not post all of its statements on its official pages as you know very well. The reason this is different from other cancelled seasons is because we have the IFA literally saying that Shorta were the champions for the season.
To conclude, Ali Jabbar is a Vice-President of the Iraqi FA and the Chairman of the Iraqi FA's Competitions Committee, and on 24 July 2019 he confirmed Al-Shorta are the champions of the league for the season 2014. This sentence alone should be clear enough as to whether we should make the changes in Wikipedia. The way I see it, the Iraqi FA has literally made life easy for us and solved the dispute for us. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Nehme1499: for your comment and also thanks to @SportingFlyer: for your comment on my talk page. The consensus here seems to be in line with SportingFlyer's suggestion to add the title to the club and league pages but make note of the circumstances on the season page as it seems Nehme1499 would be in agreement with this too from what said yesterday, and I also think this is a reasonable solution, so I am happy to make these changes. Thanks to everyone for the help on this, welcome any further comments. Hashim-afc (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer: The statement from the is not even an official statement and it comes from the short clip (have a look, it was published on facebook and someone made an article from it). There is no official report. The facts are clear, the league was ended early because of security issues and there were several rounds still to be played (so no champion was named). This is a complete utter joke.

Also why isn't there another source for this article? If this really happened and Ali Jabar stated Al-Shurta were champions, why isn't other news outlets coming up with their own stories (there are none and all the other stories are just copy and paste from word for word and why were they all published on July 24 (after Ali Jabar's clip was posted on facebook????)

Its a paraphrased quote and its not even complete, he states clearly they were not crowned and mentions about Asian eligibility!!!! (considered champions). Also the FA statement in 2014 cannot be separate, as it was the ruling for the decision. Only hours later did the FA president come out and say Al-Shurta were not named champions but considered as first place for Asian eligibility

Steel Dogg (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A few things:
1) You saying the report comes from the video is pure speculation and baseless. The quote in the article is completely different from what he says in the video. Where in the video does he mention about how ISIS had control over a number of Iraqi cities or how the league was nearing its end etc? And, the article says "Ali Jabbar told Al-Maalomah" - so it is a statement he made to this news agency and not related to this video of random people asking him. There's no reason for anyone to believe a reputable news agency would make up a quote and if you do believe that then you should never trust any news article with a quote - including ones you're trying to use for your own arguments. Wikipedia wouldn't even exist if we believed that because this is a source-based encyclopedia!
2) Just because "several rounds still to be played" does not mean no champion can be named. Just read about the 1976–77 Iraqi League, the league was suspended and Al-Zawraa was named champion. Has happened many times in different countries too.
3) Ali Jabbar spoke directly to Almaalomah as the article states which is why they're the ones posting the story, and statement was made 24 July. There's plenty of possible reasons why it's the same date as the video, maybe that's the date the Competitions Committee made the decision and was announcing it, maybe multiple journalists were there asking him, maybe he wanted to clarify what he meant after being filmed talking about it in the video - just because it's the same date it does not mean it's related to this facebook clip.
4) As for the clip itself, he says Shorta are champions in this clip! I have posted exactly what Jabbar says in this video word-for-word above, anyone here can read it for themselves. I suggested what I think the most likely meaning of 'not crowned' means, as he says twice in the video Shorta were champions so not crowned most likely refers to the lack of awards ceremony/celebrations due to the circumstances of war ending the league early, rather than meaning Shorta were not champions. It's strange that you pick on two words from the video and ignore what's before it. Again, he doesn't say anything about not crowned in the Almaalomah statement so obviously was not meaning Shorta weren't champions by this.
5) About Asian eligibility, he says in the video "Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligiblity" (so they were champions of the league and qualified for 2015 AFC Cup). So you trying to make links about what he said meaning Shorta were admitted to Asian competitions without being champions is just you putting words in his mouth. I mean he literally says word for word Shorta were champions, I don't really know what else to say!
6) If you don't trust news stories like this, then all of your quotes from 2014 are also untrustworthy then. They comes from websites like "Buratha news", "Al-Forat news", "All Iraq news" and not from official statements on FA website or accounts, so you are being hypocritical. Plus, the quotes from 2014 were contradictory anyway, as there is a quote at the time saying "Shorta were considered champions and Erbil runners-up" without mentioning anything else. If you claim the later quotes override that one due to being released later, then this Almaalomah quote should override anything from 2014 since this is the most recent statement the FA ever made about the season. And additionally like I said before there is the chance that title can be retrospectively awarded which is why we need to look at the most latest statement instead of ones from years ago. The Iraqi FA can make whatever decisions they want regarding their own competitions that they have organised and aren't bound by certain time period.
7) If you ask my opinion, the thing which is an "utter joke" is when the Iraqi FA Competitions Committee chairman comes out himself to a reputable news agency, says word for word "Al-Shorta are the champions for the season 2014" and you are trying to deny it by making baseless speculation or putting words in mouths. Regardless, I do think the dispute and previous quotes should be mentioned on the season's page, but after this statement has confirmed Shorta as champions, the title should be added to the club and league pages, which so far is what other participants in this discussion agree too. Hashim-afc (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer:

1. It is not baseless, because this video was making the rounds on social media and this is how I know about it. There is no official statement from the Iraqi FA and as you mention or try to insinuate the Iraqi FA does not post official statements on its website and Facebook page which is a false claim. Also this article from Al-Maalomah is not exclusive you can clearly see from the article and the video that the words were paraphrased from the video or do you believe the date of the release of the video on the morning of July 24 and the release of the article hours later is some kind of coincidence.

Al-Maalomah article

 “The competitions committee had canceled the Iraqi Premier League 2014 season, because of ISIS's occupation of a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was about to end and the police club was the leader of the championship at the time, and therefore the police is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season of 2014."
 The video clip
 "The 2014 championship if people don’t know, was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion (the word Batal can also mean winner or 1st place) and went to Asian eligibility (to play in Asian competitions) and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned."
 These are two of the same statements but one is clearly paraphrased and omits the important clarification that the leader of the league were named champions for purposes of Asian eligibility to play in Asian club competitions and “regarded as champions/winners but not crowned,” which confirms the Iraq FA statement in 2014 that there was no champions named or crowned but Al-Shorta were named in 1st place for Asian eligibility to play in Asian club competitions as stated in the Iraq FA’s official statement in 2014 which no one has pointed out nor translated or read. 

2. No champion in the Iraqi league were ever named champions with several rounds still to be played, this has never happened. The 1976-77 Iraqi league was ended and not suspended and only the first stage was completed, so the Iraq FA decided with all the teams have played equal number of matches that the leaders Al-Zawraa were named winners of the league. Never in the history of the Iraqi league from 1974 to present has there been a league winner being named with different teams having played different number of matches over a league season.

3. Ali Jabbar did not speak directly to Almaalomah and if on July 24 the Competitions Committee made the decision (which as a committee which only schedules league and cup competitions it cannot make such decisions on its own without the FA executive) and was announcing it as you say there would have been an official statement posted on its website and social media. Also everyone fails to take into account the 2014 decision from the Iraqi FA and its official statement which no one has bothered to read or translate and clearly explains why the league positions remained the same as to make the clubs eligible for foreign both Arab and Asian club competitions, so they named Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad and Al-Jawiya in first to fourth position.

4. We seem to be going round in circles and you yourself seem to be omitting important facts (even from the short video clip, it clearly states they were not crowned), first being the Iraq FA official decision which no one has translated. If you read every statement the Iraq FA has made on this, you will find they have cleared this up over why there were articles mentioning the Iraq FA stating Al-Shorta were champions. The Iraq FA president Abdulkhaliq Masood came out and stated clearly why there was this confusion due to clubs in the top four being nominated for Asian and Arab club competitions (with Al-Shorta in 1st place), but again your articles and statement and explanations take priority even over the organisation which organised the Iraq FA. If anyone wants to know the time of events they will come to understand what happened. There was no champions named but because Al-Shorta finished in first place and were nominated to play in the AFC club competitions, the media at the time claimed Al-Shorta as champions, and hours later the Iraq FA president said clearly “no champion was named” and Ali Jabbar’s statement confirms this “they are regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned.” You cannot name a champion of a league when there are different number of matches played by different teams and winning the league title from other teams is still possible. The Iraq FA named and nominates who wins the league title not the BBC, CNN or facebook, and its own official statement on the day the Iraq league was ended is clear, the positions in the league remained and Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad and Al-Jawiya were in 1st to 4th place in order for them to gain Asian and Arab eligibility in club competitions. There doesn’t seem to be anyone else but yourself arguing about this, and you seem to have your own interests as a Shorta fan and even using your own website as a source which no one has questioned. You can argue about this as much as you want, but this Almaalomah article is not an exclusive statement from Ali Jabbar directly to Almaalomah and if there was an official statement declaring Al-Shorta as winners there would have been an official statement from the Iraq FA on this and the Competitions Committee do not make such rulings as it organises the league schedule for the current season when the Iraq FA decision (by the FA’s executive and not a committee) was already undertaken in 2014. I ask everyone to go back to the articles and statements made in 2014 right after the FA decision and also to translate the 2014 FA decision (the official statement released to the media) posted online at the time.

This is the Iraq FA's official statement:

Steel Dogg (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You put the quotes side by side and both are different to each other, so you literally proved my point. You have no evidence that the article is linked in any way to the video or that Ali Jabbar did not speak to Almaalomah and this is just something you have come up with without any evidence at all. I already explained many possible reasons why he could've told Almaalomah on the same date as the video and just being the same date is absolutely not evidence at all. If the FA posts everything on Facebook, where is their statement from 2014 on Facebook? You are posting what the FA said in 2014 from news websites just like Almaalomah. Why should we trust your news sites but not a well-known site like Almaalomah? That makes no sense and is just you trying to conveniently ignore Almaalomah article for your argument. What you said about the 1976-77 league is wrong, six rounds of the second half of the league were played, Al-Zawraa even lost a match from the second stage 3-2 against Al-Baladiyat. The FA cancelled matches from the second half to use the first half table and named Zawraa champions. So yes, there has been a league winner named in an unfinished season. I haven't omitted any fact from the video and clearly talked about the likely meaning of 'not crowned'. The word 'batal' means champion not first place, first in Arabic is 'al-awwal'. Jabbar mentions nothing about 1st place in the video he just says champion. Everything you're saying is about the 2014 statements (which were contradictory - there is a quote which says "Shorta are considered champions and Erbil runners-up" without mentioning anything about Asian competitions, which you ignored), but like I said the Iraqi FA can make a decision at any time regarding a competition it organised and a quote from 2019 takes precedence in the "time of events". Ali Jabbar is not only the Competitions Committee chairman but also an Iraqi FA vice-president and on 24 July 2019 stated to a reputable news organisation that Al-Shorta are champions for 2014. This is crystal clear and not something you can argue without making baseless claims about the article being made up from a video even though the quotes are clearly different. And by the way if you want to call me bias I can insinuate you are bias since you support Al-Zawraa who is a great rival of Al-Shorta, but I don't like accusing people of things. Yes we're going round in circles that's why we've taken it to WP:FOOTY to see what people think, so far people have said they think the title should be added to the club and league pages but we will wait for any further comments if they come. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Indicate the FA official statement on the 2014 decision which I sent you you, it does not mention anything about the Al-Shorta as champions. I will translate it soon for the other Wiki users. Batal can also means winner.

Here a full translation of the FA statement:

"The Iraq FA ends the Premier League and cancels relegation

 The Iraqi Football Association announced in an official statement the end of the Premier League there without naming the champion/winner of the competition and relying on the current table positions  to determine the teams participating in foreign leagues with the abolition of relegation to the second division for this season.
 In a statement, the Iraqi Football Association said that after taking note of all these circumstances in the domestic game, as well as a wide agenda of international participation awaiting Iraq’s national team, the Iraqi Football Association on Wednesday held an extraordinary meeting to examine the conditions of the league and decided to end the competition games for the season 2013-2014 and adopt the results are as per the last round of the competition, and according to the final standings in the league.

The statement issued by the Iraqi Football Association: “As the board of directors of the Union to reach the decision to terminate the league, he expresses its hope to understand the reasons that led to this decision, especially the difficulty of the movement of our teams during the recent period to conduct the games and forced the Iraqi FA to postpone a number of matches due to the difficulty of movement (within the country), in addition to the approaching of the holy month of Ramadan and the inability of many stadiums to conduct matches at night, and the transfer period between two seasons should be limited and allow professional players and coaches to consider staying or moving depending on the league transfer deadline.”

“Taking into account what may result from the termination of the league, the board of directors of the FA decided not to relegate any club from the Premier League, and decided that the clubs pay no more than 70% of the total amounts of contracts of players and coaches by their clubs, which the Iraq FA wishes to play its role In the application of this resolution.”

The Iraqi FA concluded its statement by saying that “it expresses its deep regret and the deep lack of completion of the season, it hopes our football family and all those concerned with the league and our sports media and our public, to understand all the justifications we have mentioned in the decision to end the league with a firm promise that the next season will be God willing, early and exemplary, and fulfills all our aspirations."

It should be noted here that the clubs (Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad, Al-Jawiya), which occupies the top four on the ladder will be the closest to participate in foreign tournaments."

Also the Al-Maalomah article and the video have the same quote, any person can see that

Al-Maalomah article

 “The competitions committee had canceled the Iraqi Premier League 2014 season, because of ISIS's occupation of a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was about to end and the police club was the leader of the championship at the time, and therefore the police is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season of 2014."  The video clip  "The 2014 championship if people don’t know, was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion (the word Batal can also mean winner or 1st place) and went to Asian eligibility (to play in Asian competitions) and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned."

The opening paragraph has a mistake in it:

The Iraq FA ends the Premier League and cancels relegation The Iraqi Football Association announced in an official statement the end of the Premier League there without naming the champion/winner of the competition and relying on the current table positions to determine the teams participating in foreign competitions with the abolition of relegation to the second division for this season.

Like I said before, I appreciate your work at Wiki. You did very well at the Shorta section and made it one of the best and up to date Iraqi club pages however I see some mistakes like using the fanmade website (Shorta webs is NO official source) and the league winners. At the end of the day we want to make Iraqi football as complete as possible so it's nothing personal ;)

Steel Dogg (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly this statement you posted is not on the FA website or Facebook but from a news website so there is nothing that makes this statement different in nature to the one Jabbar made to Almaalomah. And the only part of this text about no champion being named is not even part of the statement as it's in the introduction and not in the quote marks. Anyway we already know what was said in 2014, there was indeed statement denying Shorta were champions and said they will only participate in Asian competitions but there was also a statement to Al-Kass Channel which said "consider Al-Shorta as the champions of the league and Erbil as second place" without mentioning anything about only being for Asian competitions. And all these statements were made around the same time after the same meeting. This is why there was confusion/dispute over if there was a winner. Why do you think people are still asking the FA about it 5 years later if it was so clear that there's no champion?
Let me give you a similar example, in January 2017 FIFA stated the previous winners of the old Intercontinental Cup would not be considered as the world club champions (here). But in October 2017 after a council meeting FIFA said that Intercontinental Cup winners are now considered world champions (here). So, are we supposed to ignore what was said in October 2017 just because in January they had said the opposite? No, we take what was said in the most recent statement, that FIFA decided them to be world club champions.
This is similar to the situation we have now. In 2014, the Iraqi FA made many statements on the same day about the end of the league including one which said there was a champion and others said there is no champion. You said there is a line of events and the last statement they made on that day says no champion but now that line of events has a new event from July 2019. Ali Jabbar who is a vice-president of the Iraqi FA and chairman of Compettions Committee comes out to a well-known news site and says word for word "therefore Shorta are champions for the season 2014". Why would we ignore this and go back to the old statements the FA made from 2014? This is the most recent statement and was made to clarify a situation which had been unclear for years and now is clear. The reason why our last discussion ended with the consensus not to list Shorta as champions was because we couldn't verify they were awarded the title - well now we can verify it as the FA have said it very recently.
There is a reason why I don't think people are agreeing with your argument because your whole argument is based off a 'hunch' that this Almaalomah article is some kind of fake and based off of a video just because they were released on the same day, but you have no evidence for this at all and there are many possible reasons as explained above as to why they are the same date. And in fact all evidence points to the opposite because the quote from the video is very much different from the article and the article specifically says Jabbar talked to Almaalomah news agency. You're basically trying to completely dismiss the fact that a senior member of the FA has just stated Shorta as the champions and instead look to older statements which doesn't make sense. Besides, even the video itself says twice that Shorta were the champions and the only way to suggest Shorta are not champions from this video is to put words in his mouth which he never said like when you started adding things in brackets and making wrong translations.
Thank you for your words and I also appreciate your work which I have said many times even before all these disputes. I just wish you would not make accusations on me because that's not helpful or respectful. I don't claim to be a perfect editor but it doesn't take a perfect editor to see that a club should be listed as champions when the FA comes out and says word for word that they are champions. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Translation:

Statement from Ayad Bunyan "In a related context, the Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Police Club considered that the issue of canceling the league was positive for all the teams of the league, but it was negative for his team, considering that the FA did not do justice to the champion of this edition, as they did enough to become champions. He added that this decision is incomplete, but we do not want to go into this matter much on the grounds that the league may develop a lot for the next season, as well as my team will play the AFC Champions League playoff for next season to represent Iraq in the half of the place granted by the Asian Football Confederation." Even he stated they were not champions

If the Iraq FA did announce Al-Shorta as 2014 league winners in 2019 there would have been an official statement and there is none. This is all speculation from yourself. The article I post is from 20 June 2014 and it states clearly from Al-Shorta president Ayad Bunyan that the club did not win the league.

If you have a look at the Iraq FA website/facebook you will see they had stopped posting any statements on their site during those days where they ended the league, however this does not mean they did not release any press statements. Also you seem to refuse any article I put forward as evidence, but this article from Almaalomah is some sort important article which brings something new, which it is not, no other Iraqi newspaper or website has stated or posted an article on this matter and it's clear that the whole statement comes from the short video clip which only confirms the Iraq FA's statement that Al-Shorta were considered as 1st in the top four for Asian eligibility and this is even confirmed by Ayad Bunyan, but as usual you remained to be convinced, because your aim is neither getting to the facts or the truth. Al-Shorta were not named champions in 2014 but only you are arguing it, even Al-Shorta and the Iraq FA at the time explained this and this Almaalomah article is not anything knew nor a confirmation as you like others on wiki to think.

Steel Dogg (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And did you read what the president of Erbil SC said here: "The Football Federation has informed us about cancelling the league and adopting Al-Shorta as the champions and Erbil as the runner-up" Or what the FA said to Al-Kass Channel here: "The best solution to end the tournament at its current stage, and consider Al-Shorta as the champions of the league and Erbil as second place". These are saying Shorta were champions and not mentioning anything about only being for Asian competitions, that's why there was contradiction and confusion about the decision. If I'm the only one arguing it, who are the people asking him in the video? Don't talk nonsense and don't make more accusations about me not wanting the truth when you are literally ignoring a new article from July 2019 with no evidence at all just for your convenience. There's no point continue the discussion because you just ignore what the FA said in 2019 and go back to things from 2014 and even ignore things from then too. Whether you like or not, the FA vice president said on 24 July 2019 "The Iraqi league was nearing completion and Al-Shorta was leading the tournament at the time, therefore Al-Shorta is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season 2014" and therefore is crystal clear with regards to what we should list on Wiki as it was literally a clarification and verification of a previously unclear issue now confirming Shorta are champions. Again your whole argument based off a hunch and no evidence. Like you said the FA didn't post anything on their pages in 2014 so I guess we can't trust anything that any news site said back then(your logic). If you trust that quotes from those sites on 2014 are correct there's no reason to doubt one from 2019 from a similar site. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh and by the way you were saying how Shorta's president said they weren't champions but Shorta's manager Lorival Santos (here) and Shorta's captain Hussein Abdul Wahid (here) were both talking about how Shorta won the league. This just showcases how there was contradicting info at the time. Ali Jabbar has now cleared up the confusion on July 2019 and there's no more doubt. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer:

Wait a minute. The article Hashim-AFC states - is all about AFC participation. The Arbil president is stating that the decision to give Al-Shorta a place in the AFC competition is unfair (as they were considered as champions, and Arbil runners-up, i.e. exactly what the FA statement noted, positions are based on Asian and Arab club competition eligibility

Erbil Club calls for a playoff with the police to determine the team participating in the extension of Asia Agencies Monday, 23-06-2014

 Erbil club management demanded a play-off with the police team in case the AFC decided to grant half of the seat to Iraq for the preliminary round of the Asian Champions League for the next season. In the same vein, we have been told that two teams will play in the preliminary round of the AFC Champions League next season. In return, we agreed to the proposal to end the league in return for guaranteeing the rights of participating teams for future benefits. A decision to grant Iraq half a seat to participate in the AFC Champions League extension, we will not give up our legitimate right and demand a playoff game with the police to be held round-trip system to determine the team that will play the AFC Champions League extension, and the Football Federation to clarify the truth of this matter about the number of teams participating in the preliminary round Majid said that Erbil team will not lose any player in the ranks during the coming period and all the players have contracts with them until the end of the AFC Cup, while noting that the management will meet with the training staff to Coordination during the next two days to discuss the preparation of the team for the match Hanoi, Vietnam in the quarter-final games of the AFC Cup.

You just removed the rest of the article, its about AFC eligibility, 1 and 2nd place gain AFC place, Arbil weren't happy and wanted a play-off, why would they ask for a play-off if the Iraq FA already declared a winner (and champion!!! according to you).

Can you explain that?

Admins, this person argues just for the sake of arguing, but his argument is weak, the clip from Ali Jabbar is stronger and looks like the article from Almaalomah omitted the important part of his statement "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned." The argument that this article has nothing to do with the clip does not matter because this is Ali Jabbar on video stating and explaining it in person. His argument that there is no relation between the Almaalomah and video clip is not important.

Steel Dogg (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The quote from Erbil president is "The Football Federation has informed us about cancelling the league and adopting Al-Shorta as the champions and Erbil as the runner-up" - of course as champion Shorta then qualifies to AFC Cup. Erbil president didn't say anything about Shorta being first place but not being champion, he just said champion. Erbil agreed to Shorta being champions as they were told champions and runners-up both qualify to same cup, after there were rumours that champions gets ACL and runners-up don't they said they don't agree with the decision anymore and now want a playoff. Pretty clear from the article. The FA also said to Al-Kass Channel that Shorta were champion as I posted before, hence the contradiction in their statements. This contradiction led to some people believing Shorta were champions (eg quote from Shorta's manager Lorival Santos "The battle was tough and the road hard in the quest for the championship. But in the end it all worked out and I got the Iraq Premier League title. Undoubtedly a very important achievement in my career" and Shorta captain Hussein Abdul-Wahid saying he was won 3 league titles with Shorta ie 2013, 2014 and 2019) others believing there are no champions eg Bunyan quote you posted. So it was an unclear situation. Now in July 2019 the FA clarifies that Shorta is indeed champion and it is no longer unclear. I'm just repeating myself, all you talk about is different statements from 2014 but ignore that the FA just said in July 2019 there was a champion. No point carrying on the discussion right now. We'll see if there are more replies from others but I don't think your argument denying that the quote from 2019 is real without any evidence is going to get much support. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
At NO point in the video does Jabbar say "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility". Don't mislead people. He said "Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligibility and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned" and as I said many times crowned can mean the actual awarding and ceremony of the trophy, it doesn't mean they are not champions because he said twice in the video itself they are champions and said to Almaalomah they are champions. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ali Jabbar clearly says "tabar" يعتبر which means regarded. Your argument is very weak and you seem to be going around the circles and repeating things which we have already dismissed previously. I ask admin to get involved because you seem to be making arguments which are weak. The league is organised by the Iraq FA not Hussein Abdulwahed or Lorival Santos and if you bother to look at the time of events, the FA statement in 2014 and reports from the FA president and FA officials Kamil Zagher, Saad Maleh and Tariq Ahmed who all stated there was no champion named and that the league positions were due to clubs qualifying for Asian and Arab club competitions, but you refuse to acknowledge anything I put forward, even statements from the Iraq FA president being quoted clearly that "no champion was named" and he made his statement on Waar TV and to Iraqi news agenecy, but this for you is not enough. With the Almaalomah article you have not come up with anything new and even your argument on this is very weak. the clip from Ali Jabbar is stronger and looks like the article from Almaalomah omitted the important part of his statement "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned." The argument that this article has nothing to do with the clip does not matter because this is Ali Jabbar on video stating and explaining it in person.

Steel Dogg (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, don't mislead people, he didn't say "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility". Everyone here can read word for word what the FA vice president said both in the video and to Almaalomah agency, which by the way was after the video and a clear clarification and verification of the title. Yes, Lorival Santos doesn't decide the winner but nor does Ayad Bunyan who you are talking about. I posted Lorival quote in response to you about Bunyan to show that there was confusion over the decision. The FA is the one who decides and in July 2019 they cleared up a previously unclear decision and said Shorta are champions. If you like to completely ignore him stating in July 2019 word for word that Shorta are champions for the season, and instead go back to older statements and pick and choose, you can. I don't think others will do the same. Let's see. I won't be responding anymore since I'm tired of repeating myself. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hervé Renard‎ managerial statsEdit

Can somebody please intervene as @Sakiv: insists on re-adding stats which are partly unsourced and partly sourced to non-RS. GiantSnowman 14:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You're the one who's causing a problem without a good reason. I've added a good, reliable source but you reject all the solutions.--Sakiv (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
May be this is a better source Soccerbase.--Sakiv (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The website you added is not reliable. Soccerbase is fine, but does not confirm all the details you are trying to add (eg goals for/against). If you re-add the table with just games played/won/lost and supported by Soccerbase then that would be OK. GiantSnowman 15:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: You see only this article, though there are thousands of articles that lack references. See this section here for example Didier Deschamps#Managerial statistics and Vahid_Halilhodžić#Managerial_statistics.--Sakiv (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and your ping didn't work. GiantSnowman 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Host vs. Hosts - Anyone care to comment?Edit Apparently there is only one host according to this editor, not hosts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP is right, it should be singular and not plural when it's just discussing France as the host. Govvy (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: And it appears you have just ran down an edit-war again, you're crusing towards WP:ANI again so you should be more careful than this, it's disgusting how much leeway the admins give you. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, in an edit war. Not willing to be blocked for you lot, so deal with yourselves now, and no, the anon is not right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Weak response, it's always interesting how you use the word host, before a name its host, after a name its hosts. Someone hosts a party. The host of the party is someone. So Walter, it shouldn't be too hard to work it out. Govvy (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
In that scenario both hosts and host are appropriate. In one sense they are the first person singular "host" of the tournament (as a nation), but they are also the third person singular hosts of the tournament (as a team). For example: "England were the hosts of Euro 96" (collective team) Vs "England are the hosts of Euro 96" (collective team) Vs "England is the host of Euro 96" (singular nation) Vs "England was the host of Euro 96" (singular nation) vs "the host of Euro 96 was England" (singular nation) Vs "the hosts of Euro 96 were England" (collective team).
When using the singular you would also typically ensure that the noun being used was singular. However "France", just as England, is both a singular and collective noun so has some odd rules (i.e. they exist as both the singular France country, but also the collective France populace and France team). In those case the wikilink on France points to the national football team which suggests the collective use.
For clarity to use the singular it would be better to say "the host nation France". This makes it a definitive singular noun. However the wikilink to the national team is then not appropriate.
In the end it could be argued that the French national team are not the hosts, France is. The French national team are present only as the home nation. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Made an alteration to define as the host team to help diffuse the tension and reverts at that article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Weak response? So when 2010 FIFA World Cup states that South Africa are hosts, they're wrong? And we were wrong to state Brazil were hosts of 2014 FIFA World Cup? And Russia were hosts of 2014 FIFA World Cup. I understand American English like to use "host", that's not the point. In British (and international) English group nouns are treated differently. That's why the Beatles were and U2 are rock bands, while Nirvana was and the E Street Band is a rock band. Go figure. I'll wait until the Brits wake up and they can confirm or deny my statements, but of course, WP:COMMONALITY would be the best option. What shouldn't be too hard to work-out is understanding WP:LANGVAR. And Govvy, please don't talk down to me, especially when you're being so incorrectly smug. Part of the problem is host is being used as both a verb and a noun. The verb here is host and the noun, when using British English at least, is hosts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Funny how you just followed the writing convention I said... I don't know why you are quoting LANGVAR, it's the same writing convention in American as it is in English. host name, name hosts. Using a combination with; is, are, you, can change the spelling from a verb to a countable noun. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately Govvy, I can't fathom out what you are trying to say. The hosts were Brazil. Brazil were the hosts. I am not seeing this pattern you are claiming. To quote your earlier example: "Someone hosts a party. The host of the party is someone." Sentence 1 is stating "someone is the host of a party" and appears to be an incomplete statement. Sentence 2 is stating "the host of a party is someone". Can you clarify. Koncorde (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Host is simultaneously a noun, collective noun and "to host" is a verb which conjugates to "he/she hosts." Sentence 1, "Someone" is the subject and "hosts" is the verb. Sentence 2, host is being used as a noun. (The collective noun doesn't bother us - think "a host of hosts") SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think "host" vs "hosts" really impacts anyone's ability to understand the information presented in the article, and I really don't think arguing such minutia is an effective use of anyone's time. Either word gets the point across equally well. Use "automatically-qualified host nation (France) in the final tournament" if you're really intent on finding something less ambiguous (and don't anyone dare start a nation vs country vs member association argument). -Gopherbashi (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Either word is fine. It's like election/elections – both are used to describe a single election. Anyone claiming that "host" is definitely wrong in this context does not understand how English is used in practice. Whatever term was used first should stay rather than it be edit-warred over. Number 57 18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't quit makes sense, Election is a variable or uncountable noun while Host can be used as a countable noun or a verb, which makes the two words operate a bit differently. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Germany national football team resultsEdit

We have an issue that is seems like this page has just been copied and brought over to the English wiki which wouldn't be an issue until you realise it's over 500 thousand bytes in size. I've started to attempt this but I don't think this should really count. I'll ping @Schami1989: for his thoughts on it. But what are we going to do with this page. HawkAussie (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At the very least that should be split into three articles- pre-war, post-war and post reunification (I realise it's the same association but that's probably the three easiest points to split it at first instance). Only problem with that is there's already a Germany national football team results (2000–present) but that doesn't meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
There was some duplicated text at the bottom and redirected the 21st century results to the existing article. So that has reduced it to 'only' 400k. The creator has enthusiastically reverted the changes a few times, and the history of the article shows it is not the first time well-meaning attempts to improve the article have been undone. I have conversed with User:Ekspertiza and invited them to discuss the article here. Crowsus (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Seperated parts are not same form...and cathing informations in seperated form of articles is more diificult than seperation of table is not way...Ekspertiza (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me when I say this, but sperated is the form, because of these "result" pages are seperated into two to three different article so not make the article too massive. Their is also the fact that their is some useless information that isn't needed here. Like why do we know who the German goalkeeper/captain when their is no indications of who actually scored for Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The amount of excessive detail in the new article is insane. Why do we need to know who the German goalkeeper was? Why do we need details of opponents' penalties (but not any other opponents' goals)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Becouse page's name is GERMAN team's match results... is not any reason of your questions??? Ekspertiza (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because this copied from the German Wiki which has a different style to how we do it here. Over here, we don't that info and may I guide to this page or this one in how we do it here on the wiki. HawkAussie (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)]
Or even better this one, which is a Featured List...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that these pages are good but must other pages be as these??? German team match result page is another style and it is not reason to seperate it for to like other pages (Scotland or Denmark match result) Ekspertiza (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Why does it matter that it gets divided into three articles, as long as the information is available? The German Wikipedia does seem to like larger articles: de:Liste der Länderspiele der deutschen Fußballnationalmannschaft (source of list in question) or de:Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft. The latter would be broken into a number of articles on English Wikipedia.   Jts1882 | talk  10:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Well no, it doesn't need to be specifically three articles. The only consistency between national team results articles is that they are split up (unless we're talking the Cook Islands or American Samoa), there's no set standard as to how they get split.
But to answer your question Ekspertiza- yes, other pages should be as these per MOS:ARTCON. It means that information is consistently presented and avoids confusion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree that there is far too much info in the table. I'd ditch : captain, keeper, own goals, penalties and red cards as a start. I'd also cut down on the excessive bolding. Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the German list, referred to by Jts1882 above, only has 8 columns so I'm going to match that. Spike 'em (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The same user has also been editting the related Germany national football team statistics which again is overloaded with pretty mundane information and many of the lists are far too long (why does it need the 27 youngest and 18 oldest players, for instance?). Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
And a complete list of every penalty missed by an opponent against Germany? Seriously???? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Good god. So many useless stats, needs to be trimmed down. Kante4 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"Chronological list of opponent players who scored a goal in the last minute of a match against Germany" is another good one. Why?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
As with the other list, Ekspertiza has simply reverted all changes made by other editors, including putting back in the brilliantly pointless "Chronological list of opponent players who scored a goal in the last minute of a match against Germany" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid Ekspertiza does not accept the consensus formed here. At some point a wider discussion and Admin action(s) may be needed... Kante4 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
noooo you can noooot.....only regretsss --Ekspertiza (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ekspertiza: The problem is you only try and put your opinon instead of consensus that WP:Footy has put in which makes the page worse instead of what are you trying to intend. HawkAussie (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I am sure John Motson would be proud of a web page of this level of trivia, as that's the level of obscurity this has gone into. I support the culling of the most extraneous parts. Koncorde (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A quick heads-up that Ekspertiza has now been inďef blocked. He/she also created a raft of articles on players which need the poor quality of the English looking at, including Cyril Dunning who apparently "scored a poker" in one game. Literally no idea what that means..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A poker is four goals scored by a single player. I guess the expression is not widely used in English (though it is in Russian, for example) --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have to say that in more than 35 years of following football I have genuinely never heard that expression..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As an aside, I have deleted all articles created by Ekspertiza, given they have been blocked as a sock (see WP:CSD#G5. If anyone wants any restoring just give me a shout. GiantSnowman 08:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


I'm struggling to see this fun and well-referenced section as encyclopedic. I'm also a bit baffled by how it could ever conform to an inherently POV criterion like "memorable".

I'm sure I could add a bunch of citations for goal celebrations by Norwich players down the years (a favourite) and (a contender for the coolest celebration of a great goal) that I personally find "memorable" but they don't really belong in an encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to have some input from people before I remove a big old chunk of referenced text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Different examples of celebration? For sure. But not 'memorable' ones. GiantSnowman 12:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Most things can be cited. Something like celebrations (sadly) need commentary for them to be worthwhile keeping. If a celebration was front page news for being edgy - sure. If it was a protest that got news, then the protest should have a mention, as well as the celebration. If it struck something in popular culture, sure. Just like a list of celebrations is irrelevant Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks guys, I'm going to delete it all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Loan (sports) into Transfer (association football)#Loan)Edit

I have proposed merging Loan (sports) into Transfer (association football)#Loan. Please do not discuss the proposal here, but instead at the relevant talk page. Domeditrix (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Round-by-round results tablesEdit

Hi! There's currently a discussion at User talk:Sb008#2019–20 Eredivisie regarding "Positions by round" tables in season articles. I feel the discussion could do with some more eyes regarding these additions. Thank you for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Rudi GutendorfEdit

I have nominated Rudi Gutendorf in the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates was a Guinness record holder having coached 55 teams in 32 countries across five continents.Article needs to be updated.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, hope you're well.

Please may you check out my article for Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. season on . Please may you publish this, it's ready and backed up, and considering the WSL is already two games in, it should be published. Please could you also upload the Lewes F.C. Women season article I have just created. You'll find it here->

Only upload the article for Brighton & Lewes.


Beeney :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeney xx (talkcontribs) 15 September 2019 21:26 (UTC)


So there is a new Nigerian editor (who had been once blocked for violating 3RR) who insists to have flags on team name, and put "qualified for World Cup" as an achievement equivalent to winning the competition, as well as adding trophy graphics, like in Nigeria women's national under-20 football team. I offer many examples but he falsely accused me as a disruptive editor. How do you guys think? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I say yeah, I don't think those graphics are meant to be in the article so I have remove those from the pages. HawkAussie (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dimitar Berbatov retired?Edit

There are a couple of sources now which say he is retired, [1], [2]. There are those two sources, but can anyone see a decent source to show his retirement? Govvy (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This from Eurosport from July 2019 confirms he is retired. GiantSnowman 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Eduardo Silva LermaEdit

Should Eduardo Silva Lerma be sent for deletion? JMHamo (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look to meet NFOOTBALL, has only played in Segunda B or lower from what I can see... GiantSnowman 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
To all intents and purposes, he isn't notable but if the appearance for Velje in 2009/10 can be sourced he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither of the current sources have any detail of him playing in Denmark though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and PROD'ed it. JMHamo (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Source for signing for Velje: [3] (edit - also listed on the Vejle "Most matches" page: [4])Gricehead talk 09:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
He played in the first division (second tier) for Velje in 2009/10. That's not listed as a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Racing de Santander BEdit

Further input from interested editors please on a renaming request at the above, which was relisted with one support (in addition to proposer) and one oppose. Since the request was originally made, I have updated both relevant articles with several refs to explain the situation. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018–19 Under 19 BundesligaEdit

Comments from experienced project participants would be appreciated at Draft talk:2018–19 Under 19 Bundesliga with regard to whether it is suitable for mainspace or not.

(More generally, more than 80 football-related drafts are awaiting review at Articles for creation. AfC is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. Many hands make light work!) --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Football international goals keys}} - thoughts?Edit

Just came across this template on a couple of women's articles (example). It seems a bit like overkill to me. Hack (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember mentioning it a few weeks back, without getting much answers. Overkill and just not needed. A simple text what this match was about would be enough... Kante4 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree it's overkill - any 'international goals' stats table should not be overly complex and should not require a key of that nature! Please take to TFD. GiantSnowman 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely before deleting the key, we should address the table to which it is the key? Deleting this template will just leave a bunch of articles with a table but no key......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
There's less than 100 articles with the template at the moment. Hack (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it is good idea. We often assume the headings are obvious with no explanation, when they often aren't (count the reversions in the 100 PL goal list because the headers are misunderstood). It shouldn't be expanded by default and it might be better placed in a full-width footer row of the table. The template has been in use for seven years and is used in almost 100 articles.   Jts1882 | talk  07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portugal national youth football teamEdit

Is Portugal national youth football team a draft or not? If it is, could you stop Nzol12 (talk · contribs) from edit warring? SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be a draft? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yeah, it's not a draft, but there's so much wrong with it. It's not notable; as it's more of a navbox than anything else. Probably an AfD job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Erling Braut Håland protectionEdit

Might be worth protecting Erling Braut Håland for a bit. His Champions League hat-trick, and general form, have made his article the subject of quite a bit of unconstructive editing, mostly from IP's and new accounts. JSWHU (Talk page) 23:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

British 'expatriates' in BritainEdit

@Jmorrison230582: has reverted me at Bobby Burns (a NI player in Scotland), staying that "we don't include people moving within the UK as "expatriates". e.g. otherwise every English player in Scotland (or vice versa) would be counted as an expatriate". Is that correct, and if so, why not? GiantSnowman 10:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Because he is a UK citizen who moved to another part of the UK. He didn't become an "expatriate" when he moved from Glenavon to Hearts. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not in a footballing context, where we break the UK down into constituent countries. GiantSnowman 11:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"Expatriate footballers in Scotland" is a child category of Category:Expatriates in the United Kingdom (via "Expatriates in Scotland" and "Expatriate sportspeople in Scotland"). It would be illogical to include someone from (somewhere else in) the United Kingdom there. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
OK - if we follow that logic through, then why do we have French expatriates in Germany if both are EU citizens? (any mention of B****t is an automatic block btw!) GiantSnowman 12:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The EU and UK are not equivalent unions. French and German nationals are EU citizens because of their French and German citizenship and continued status as EU citizens depends on remaining French or German citizens. Scottish footballers are UK citizens and qualify to play for Scotland based on a set of criteria independent of their citizenship. They cannot be expats in the country of their citizenship.   Jts1882 | talk  12:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Britain (UK) is a single entity in all interpretations for nationality and, per your passport (regardless of colour), states: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". The term expatriate is usually used for people living outside of their native country - i.e. they emigrated (or are immigrants). As a single entity British citizens do not need to do this.
Now, whether this also applies to places like Gibraltar, Isle of Man etc is another thing. Technically they are British citizens, but those countries crown protectorates or overseas territories which are strictly not part of the UK, so their residents are functionally always "expatriates" from the UK (although they likely come under the concept of a Commonwealth). Koncorde (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes I would agree with Koncorde's interpretation. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are not sovereign states. Yes, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England have their own football teams, but that is because of historical footballing reasons, so Great Britain is actually one of seven UN nations not to have a national football team. I feel that if we started describing Welsh players in the English Football League/Premier League as "expatriates" then we would be the only source to do this and readers would assume we are just wrong and unreliable. We cannot describe footballers as expatriates when in other contexts they would not be considered as such. So if Gordon Ramsay made it as a footballer and resided in London then he would be an expatriate but seen as he was instead a chef then he is not a Scottish expatriate in England. Those contradictions only exist if we classify footballers within the UK as expatriates.--EchetusXe 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree that British players playing in other British constituent nations shouldn't be classified as expatriates, I don't think moving within the United Kingdom can be considered emigrating. Also, the term expatriate refers to the person's place of residence, and I don't see how we could ever know if a Welshman who plays somewhere like Shrewsbury or Bristol still lives in Wales or has moved to England unless we had a reliable source for his home address! — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Football".