Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

"Caretaker management jobs aren't included infobox per consesus"

So claims Buttons0603 [1]. Am I right in saying that there has never been any such consensus? EchetusXe 15:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the first time i hear that and i disagree. If you are the head coach/manager of a team it goes into the infobox. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree - we should include caretaker manager roles in the infobox (and associated manager navbox). GiantSnowman 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely remember there was a discussion, but it was about temporary managers, not caretaker ones; for example someone who unofficially takes charge of the team for a few games if a manager is indisposed (a good example - Bristol City in the last few weeks with Liam Manning absent due to the tragic death of his son). I agree those shouldn't be included, but officially appointed caretaker managers (i.e. where there is no manager because they have resigned or been sacked) should be. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there's some common sense and "I know it when I see it" when it comes to temporary managers. Phil Thompson was twice Premier League Manager of the Month in a five-month spell when Gérard Houllier was sidelined following heart surgery. He managed two more Liverpool games in an emergency than Roy Hodgson did under contract. Interestingly I came to the page to ask for clarification about Sébastien Bichard who was the stand-in manager of Kosovo when the permament manager was suffering from COVID. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

All good points - hence why Buttons' mass removing caretaker roles citing a non-existent consensus was disruptive. I have reverted. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You were the one that stated this consensus in the first place? [2] Buttons0603 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Assistant roles are not the same as caretaker roles! GiantSnowman 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I should have remembered that, considering I was in the away end at Anfield when Thompson first took over! Yes, clearly extended stints like that should be included. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This editor is now restoring assistant roles and describing removing them as "vandalism" - assistance please? GiantSnowman 19:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't get the reason we are against Assistant roles. I think it's of great use to the reader to show a manager's progression. Especially since manager articles aren't the most updated articles (particular the ones not at top clubs/leagues) so those assistant roles might be entirely missing from the prose. Why was this guy out of the game for 5 years....Oh he wasn't, he was just an assistant. RedPatch (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If those assistant roles are listed in the infobox, but aren’t backed up with information and sources written into the body of the article, they shouldn’t be there. Infoboxes are almost always unsourced and rely on being backed up by the rest of the article. The push should be for expanding the body of the article, not the infobox. Sunny☀️Tango (talk • edits) 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, just an assistant. The gap in roles would imply they are a pretty terrible manager or don’t want to be a manager. No additional detail required. Seasider53 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If we include assistant roles, we'll need to include coaching, scouting, ambassadorial... it's too much. GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

EFL Cup medals at Trent Alexander-Arnold

There's been a long slow edit war at Trent Alexander-Arnold over whether or not the 2023–24 EFL Cup can be included in his list of awards. He played in other games, but was not in the matchday squad for the final and there's no specific source we have that says he won a medal. Because the club lists the award, it's often added to the page. I have generally removed it per Talk:Trent_Alexander-Arnold#2023-24_EFL_Cup_win and User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_55#Trent on @Mattythewhite's talk, but I'd like to get clear consensus on this, because it's a pretty stupid edit war to be constantly having. Alyo (chat·edits) 12:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If the club lists it, is that not an indication that they gave him a medal.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude clubs are obviously incentivized to list as many honors as possible, regardless of whether the player actually has a medal or not (see also the Harvey Elliot example here or the Messi example below). If we decide that having a medal is the bar for inclusion of the achievement, then I don't see that we can use the club's statement as the final determination. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is akin to Lionel Messi and 2005 Supercopa de España, isn't it? We don't credit him with that even if Barca do. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this is a different scenario. Messi wasn't involved in either of the matches in the 2005 Supercopa, whereas Alexander-Arnold was very involved in the matches leading up to the final of the EFL Cup last season. – PeeJay 23:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there a list of guidelines that the EFL lists for determining who receives a medal? For the league, we don’t only list those who were in the matchday squad when the title was won. Sunny☀️Tango (t • c) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The winning club is given a fixed number of medals to distribute as they see fit, and that's as much as is specified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

From the official competition rules In addition to the Cup, the Management Committee shall present thirty souvenirs to the winning Club in the Final Tie; and thirty souvenirs to the losing Club in the Final Tie. Additional souvenirs may be presented with the consent of the Management Committee but shall be at the cost of the requesting Club. There's literally nothing to specify who the winning club can or must give them to (technically there's nothing requiring them to actually give a medal to every player who played in the final!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Soccerway [3] lists it as one of his trophies.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

He played in the tournament and the club lists it, so I think its right to include it. Would you remove an honour from a player who plays in the World Cup and gets injured in the semi-final, so doesn't appear in the matchday squad for the World Cup Final due to injury? It's not any different. RedPatch (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to assume that Soccerway is a reliable source in this context. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So sometimes Soccerway is a reliable source and sometimes it isn’t?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Soccerway is a database owned by an AI sports data company. I don't consider them reliable for anything other than basic numbers, no. Assuming the question here something non-numerical here, like "does the player have a medal" (realizing that consensus below is leaning against that), there's no reason to believe that Soccerway knows any more than you or me. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What Chris said above, about the thirty souvenirs (medals) is correct, however there are some qualifiers on the football players that can receive them. A footballer player needs to be fully registered to play and have a least been registered in one match day squad in the competition run. Otherwise the souvenir (medal) will goto a staff member. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If he played in the competition in earlier rounds the honour should be listed. Kante4 (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The medals are a red herring. If a player was registered for the competition, that's a good indication, but if they played in the competition's earlier rounds, that's the smoking gun that tells you they should be credited with the honour. – PeeJay 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. If it’s a one-off game like the Community Shield or the Super Cup then fine. But if the player has played in prior rounds of the competition but wasn’t on the pitch when it was won they should still be credited. Same as something like the Champions League. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this stated somewhere in the tournament rules:A footballer player needs to be fully registered to play and have a least been registered in one match day squad in the competition run.

If so, then we have evidence that TAA is eligible for a medal and from the club that he has actually received one. I'd include it as one of his honours in this case. Spike 'em (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks all. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Help reference football articles in the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive

Hi WikiProject Football, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. Many football-related articles are currently tagged as unreferenced, and this drive is a great chance to help improve them. You can see the list of unreferenced football articles here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding reliable sources is welcome—whether you add one source or tackle several articles. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup, again

Sorry to revive this discussion once more, but I think the situation has changed since the last time the topic was brought up.

It has become quite clear that the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup will be the first, inaugural edition of a new, quadrennial competition. Meanwhile, per page 10 of this document, FIFA recognises the FIFA Intercontinental Cup (to determine the annual club world champions) as a continuation of the FIFA Club World Cup played from 2000 to 2023. It appears the FIFA Intercontinental Cup will use the same trophy as the Club World Cup until 2023 [4], while there will be a new trophy created for the 2025 tournament [5]. If Real Madrid win the 2024 Intercontinental Cup, FIFA will recognise it as their 6th title, while victory in the 2025 Club World Cup would be recognised as Madrid's 1st title.

Below I have compiled a list of primary and secondary sources that indicate the 2025 Club World Cup will be a new tournament. I understand that in previous discussions, some editors were concerned with there not being enough secondary sources identifying the 2025 tournament as a new competition. However, I also think it should be noted that as a governing body, it is worth giving some weight to how FIFA recognise the history/continuation of their competitions. For example, when FIFA recognised the winners of the European/South American Cup as world champions in 2017, we did not wait until secondary sources consistently recognised these clubs as such, but we immediately updated our articles to follow the official decision. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to maintain the correct continuity of these tournaments, as officially recognised by FIFA.

Sources

Primary sources on the new FIFA Club World Cup The competition’s official name will be Mundial de Clubes FIFA and will feature clubs from each of the six confederations... The first edition of the tournament will take place from 15 June to 13 July 2025. [6] FIFA has unveiled the emblem for the inaugural 32-team FIFA Club World Cup™, the most inclusive competition in the history of club football, as the countdown to the first edition in the United States next year continues. [7] New tournament will be played for the first time in 2025 [8] The FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ - the new prime club competition organised by FIFA - will take place in June and July 2025... [9] The inaugural edition of the FIFA Club World Cup will signal the start of a new era in club football history with a brand-new trophy... [10] ... ahead of the new FIFA Club World Cup™, which debuts in 2025 and will be held every four years. [11] Primary sources on the FIFA Intercontinental Cup Evolution of FIFA’s annual global club competition: Since it was first launched – as the FIFA Club World Championship in 2000 – the FIFA Intercontinental Cup has evolved to become the premier annual tournament in global club football, with the winners of the final match holding the crown of world champions for the next calendar year. The first edition of the then FIFA Club World Championship took place in Brazil and featured eight teams from six confederations. The tournament ran in parallel with the Intercontinental Cup, which had been contested by the champions of CONMEBOL and UEFA since 1960... After a pause between 2001 and 2004, when the Intercontinental Cup was played, it returned in 2005 as the FIFA Club World Cup and continued to grow in reach, stature and reputation, as the best of the best from every continent competed on the global stage. In 2024, the tournament entered a new phase of evolution with the establishment of the FIFA Intercontinental Cup, with winners from each of the six confederations given the chance to compete on the global stage on an annual basis. [12] The Bureau of the Council has unanimously taken a number of key decisions in relation to the FIFA Intercontinental Cup™, FIFA’s annual club tournament, which will have an exciting new format with stand-alone intercontinental competitions [13] Each Participating Club acknowledges that the Competition is a continuation of FIFA’s annual club competition (formerly known as the FIFA Club World Cup™) in line with FIFA’s objective and efforts to reformat this competition, which will be renamed as the FIFA Intercontinental Cup™ from 2024 onwards. [14] (Referring to Al Ahly's participation in the 2024 FIFA Intercontinental Cup) Egyptian club Al Ahly... will be appearing at their tenth edition of the competition. However, they will now have a chance to play a FIFA match on home soil thanks to the revamped format, with all their previous outings in the tournament having come in other countries. [15] Reliable secondary sources on the new FIFA Club World Cup ESPN: FIFA's inaugural Club World Cup will be staged in the United States and is scheduled to run from June 15 to July 13, 2025. [16] The Athletic: FIFA has confirmed the 12 stadiums that will stage the inaugural Club World Cup in the United States next summer. [17] Diario AS: To date, we know that the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup will be staged in the USA running from 15 June-13 July in 2025 [18] Associated Press: The inaugural men’s edition will have 12 European teams and six from South America. [19] Sports Illustrated: Teams from AFC, CAF, Concacaf, OFC and UEFA will touch down in the United States and compete in the inaugural edition of the tournament next summer. [20] The Guardian: The process has been complicated by Fifa’s decision to select a range of different stadium sizes, as the 32 teams who have qualified for the first Club World Cup will attract significantly different fanbases. Goal: The brand-new Club World Cup is just nine months away, but no one seems to know how, exactly, it will all go ahead. [21] Sky Sports: Liverpool and Manchester United have been locked out of playing in FIFA's new Club World Cup which will be held for the first time in the summer of 2025. [22] FIFA has set aside 15 June to 13 July in 2025 for the inaugural edition of a 32-club men's tournament in the United States, sources say. [23] The Independent: Some clubs that have qualified for the new Club World Cup next summer have pushed for Fifa... [24] Reuters: The new tournament from soccer's world governing body, featuring 12 European clubs... [25]

Therefore, I have the following questions:

1. Should the FIFA Club World Cup from 2025 be recognised on Wikipedia as a new tournament, with a separate article created for this competition?
2. If so, should the Club World Cup from 2000 to 2023 be combined into the same article as the FIFA Intercontinental Cup (played from 2024)? Or should the articles be kept separate?

I would appreciate any input. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging some users from previous discussions: @Blaixx, Chris1834, Island92, Jay eyem, Matilda Maniac, Snowflake91, and Svartner:. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

— It appears the FIFA Intercontinental Cup will use the same trophy as the Club World Cup until 2023 [7], while there will be a new trophy created for the 2025 tournament [8]. If Real Madrid win the 2024 Intercontinental Cup, FIFA will recognise it as their 6th title, while victory in the 2025 Club World Cup would be recognised as Madrid's 1st title — This I think is pretty clear to consider it a new tournament, but I rather wait until 2024 FIFA Intercontinental Cup is fully played to be aware of a final difference (if there will be, the trophy being used indeed). Island92 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence now that we should make a new article for the quadrennial tournament beginning in 2025 (the FIFA Club World Cup). I feel less strongly about this next point but I do think there should be one article for the annual world championship event (i.e. merge the 2000–2023 CWC into the FIFA Intercontinental Cup article). Regarding the second point, there aren't really any secondary sources to back this up but I do feel that those will come once the 2024 event starts to wrap up. BLAIXX 00:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

At this point I also support the creation of a new article for the new tournament using the name "FIFA Club World Cup" while using FIFA Club World Cup as a disambiguation page for the time being. I personally do not support merging the old CWC with this new Intercontinental Cup and believe they should be kept separate. It is amazing how badly FIFA is mangling the history of all of these tournaments to suit their narrative (as well as many ostensibly reliable sources just regurgitating such) and it has been frustrating dealing with the previous conversations on the topic due to some of the behaviors that occurred during those discussions. I think as long as the history of the previous tournament using the same name is sufficiently covered in the relevant articles then it is probably fine to make the change. I would also personally love to see if the tournament even happens first, but I see no reason to wait for that. Jay eyem (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what FIFA decides, the format of the new Intercontinental Cup is too different to be a direct successor to the annual and limited Club World Cup. We should keep them separate unless there is strong consensus among reliable sources (not just press release regurgitation, but actual choices made by organizations like RSSSF) to merge them. Same goes for whether the expanded CWC is a new tournament or continuation; wait until there's proper consensus. SounderBruce 06:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait I still think waiting a while doesn't hurt, if there's a significant chance it would get reverted based on different information from FIFA. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Everything I've seen shows it's intended to be a new competition. SportingFlyer T·C 07:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Schmidt (footballer) - ambiguous nationality or not?

I've never heard of this player, but I found his page after creating a page for a player of a similar name. Schmidt is treated in his lead as a player of ambiguous nationality, like Marcos Senna who became a Spanish footballer at age 30, or other naturalised players.

Haaland is not treated as an ambiguous player, and with good reason. Both his parents are Norwegian. He moved there at 3. He was educated in Norway. He learned his profession in Norway. He was never approached by the English FA. Not even the Daily Mail would claim him as English.

Schmidt was born in the USA to German and Japanese parents. He moved to Japan at age 2 and was educated there. Unlike Haaland, he would be born a citizen of the USA, but that has no relevance to his football career if the USA never pursued him. MOS:CONTEXTBIO "neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability."

I'm sure with Schmidt, and there must be other players too, the "Haaland precedent" simplifies their nationality. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that simply Japanese would be accurate. Only complication is the categories saying American which as you have mentioned are technically correct due to birthright. I think Raheem Sterling is a similar example. Crowsus (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the issue? Schmidt represents a country he wasn't born in. Therefore, it's not clear-cut to present him as a one nationality player like Haaland who represents the country he was born in (and hasn't had any other possible eligibility as you said). --SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Erling Haaland was born in Leeds, so it is a very similar situation. Spike 'em (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. Probably should've been stated by OP. --SuperJew (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have occurred in this edit in January this year. I can't see any discussion about it, so would simply reverse it. Living in Japan since an early age and representing only that country in internationals makes him Japanese to me. Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-relevant discussion regarding Giuseppe Rossi, born in America but represented Italy. I believe the nationality should be listed in the opening in most cases personally. The only time I can see it getting a little convoluted is if a player represents multiple countries, either at senior or junior levels. SunnyTango (t • c) 14:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In the United States, naturalness counts jus solis, and in Japan jus sanguinis. He definitely has dual nationality. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies and flags.

I know this has come up time and time before but am I correct in thinking that on football club articles the correct flag for players from the Crown Dependencies is England as per FIFA eligibility rules. The reason being the Crown Dependences are not members of Fifa in their own right but rather part of the English FA?

Obviously there are exceptions to this for example Luke Harris was born in Jersey but plays for Wales so Wales would be the correct flag. C. 22468 Talk to me 14:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A player from Jersey has the Jersey flag, a player from Guernsey has the Guernsey flag - same with Martinique and others. GiantSnowman 14:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Jersey is not a FIFA or UEFA member though and doesn't compete in internationally recognised football, it is part of the English FA. on the other hand Martinique is a member of CONCACAF and does compete in FIFA recognised events. C. 22468 Talk to me 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the relevant football association have to be a member of FIFA? Although Jersey is not a FIFA member, they are recognised by FIFA. – PeeJay 16:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

the Jersey FA is recognised as a county of the (English) FA by FIFA in the same way a county association is. In simple terms the Jersey FA has the same status as the Birmingham FA yet we wouldn't use the Birmingham flag for Jude Bellingham we would use the England flag. C. 22468 Talk to me 17:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the basis for all of these assertions you are making? We have always displayed Channel Islands footballers by their island, not as 'England'. GiantSnowman 18:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to show this? I can't seem to find any consensus on the topic. All articles clearly state Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.. Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not FIFA Nationalities. C. 22468 Talk to me 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not edit articles until there is consensus. Secondly, sources say his 'nationality' is Guernsey, see this. You're the only one wanting to change this. Thirdly, for links, see e.g. this where Brett Pitman has a Jersey flag - as he has done for his entire career... GiantSnowman 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one opposing this, It's been discussed before Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_84#non-FIFA_nationality. Soccorway can put whatever flag it wants for someone but it's FIFA who decides the FIFA nationality not Soccerway. C. 22468 Talk to me 18:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please find something more recent than 10 years ago... GiantSnowman 18:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can show me the consensus has changed then that is what we should go by. Guernsey isn't a FIFA nationality. C. 22468 Talk to me 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 121#Flag question and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Nationality again. GiantSnowman 18:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 112#Non-FIFA nationalities in club squads - "FIFA eligibility rules can applies to non-member of FIFA". Saying he is English is simply not correct.

Or, to look at it another way - if CoolGuy is right, then let's change the flag template to remove options for Guernsey/Jersey, and delete Category:Guernsey footballers etc. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Whilst we await further input here, CoolGuy has now violated 3RR at Bradford City - please can somebody revert to restore the status quo? GiantSnowman 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As all the football club articles state Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.. The fact is Gurnsey is not a FIFA nationality unless you can prove otherwise. Maybe we should change the text for that who knows but that is another question altogether. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is NOTHING that justifies your edit warring. NOTHING. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The text is clear "''Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.", Guernsey is not a FIFA nationality. If you don't agree with that text then I can only suggest you change that for every football article. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The only time Jersey or Guernsey flags should be used is for Muratti Vase match articles. Any other time, the English flag should be used (except where they represented another FIFA member) as the Channel Islands are considered part of England for UEFA/FIFA purposes and we only use flags for FIFA nationality. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just downloaded the FIFA statutes and it doesn't mention Crown Dependencies at all. It used to be the case that players with a British passport but not from one of the four main nations could choose who to play for, is that not still the case? Crowsus (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, it still states as such on Guernsey F.C. - if still correct, my opinion would be that just because the club is a member of the English FA, it doesn't necessarily mean that the players are so they shouldn't be equated with England automatically. Crowsus (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Then an option may be to have no flag, It's not just Guernsey FC that is affiliated to the English FA rather the whole Bailiwick is under the jurisdiction of the English FA for footballing purposes. As the Crown Dependencies are not members of FIFA in their own right it would be best in my opinion that by default the flag for them should be the England Flag unless other circumstances apply such as the case with Kieran Tierney. C. 22468 Talk to me 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Guernsey and Jersey and listed in Category:Men's association football players by nationality. I've been to Jersey and they consider themselves very much as Jerseymen and women, and not English. Mainly because they are Channel Islanders and not English. Just as I am English and not a Channel Islander. It doesn't matter about some technicality about FIFA policy.--EchetusXe 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

problem is that goes back to the question it violates"''Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." given that the Crown Dependencies are not FIFA nationalities. C. 22468 Talk to me 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two options here - either we consider Jersey/Guernsey a 'nationality' for football squad reasons, or we do not. I say that we do/should, for the reasons that EchetusXe gives. Some wording in an old template is irrelevant, and if that's what CoolGuy is going off, then I'm embarrassed for him. GiantSnowman 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume then you will be starting the discussion about editing the text Template:Football squad start to make it clear we aren't using FIFA nationalities anymore? Also I would appreciate less personal attacks. Maybe you should read WP:NPA. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because we have can have the exception here that proves the rule. Channel Islands are unique. GiantSnowman 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I will start it then, as you say the template is an old template wording and you can add your voice to the update, it would also be helpful for other editors to know why they are unique. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

: The player's nationality. Use the name of the country, or its 3-letter IOC country code, rather than an adjective (e.g. "Spain" instead of "Spanish"). This is for the country that the player represents in international football (regardless of nationality of birth or citizenship, or non-FIFA sporting nationalities the player may use in other contexts). If this template is used in a non-FIFA context, then some other nationality might apply; however, this parameter is never for indication of birthplace as such, which has nothing to do with football. is the current text used however as you seem to take issue with this I will start the RfC now. C. 22468 Talk to me 22:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

An RfC has been started... Spike 'em (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

How good of CoolGuy to notify us! GiantSnowman 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oliver Hamilton

Article was created as a redirect to a season article in 2021. What's the best way to proceed? Have never seen this before. Seasider53 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess that was done because that was the only season when he made a senior-level appearance for any club. I remember asking once before whether, in scenarios where a player had only ever made one such appearance, it would be better to redirect to the club season when he did so or to List of XX F.C. players and I don't recall that there was a definitive decision....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't create player articles just to redirect - but redirecting is sensible, and matches AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources Seperated

Hi all,

Just noticed that sources are now being separated onto a different line in Records sections. I've provided a few examples from South Africa, England and France to show what I mean.

Anyone have any idea why this is happening? It seems as though following a bracketed date it now immediately places a line break for some reason. Solutions welcomed! Felixsv7 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Updated}} had been updated today to use {{Hatnote}}, so I assumed this is what has caused it. I see that {{Updated}} had a second parameter for reference, have you tried adding the ref into there rather than having them separated? Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have a look at User:Spike 'em/sandbox/updated you can see how this is done / how it looks. There is a discussion of this at Template talk:Updated#Convert to module. Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Cheers @Spike 'em:, it looks like they've rolled it back now! Felixsv7 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was me! Will keep you posted if it gets changed back. Spike 'em (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Agustín Módica

The lead on this page I created now says that Módica is an unambiguously Italian footballer. Módica was born in Italy to an Argentine father with Italian ancestors and went back to Argentina when he was 2. Though I don't agree with it, I can see why people would call him indisputably Italian, as he was born there and would be born a citizen as passed on through his father. But I just see that as pretty weird as this is the son of an Argentine, who probably has no memory of Italy at all. No national team has come in to stake a claim to him yet. I think the category "Naturalized citizens of Argentina" can go as WP:OR as that assumes he took a citizenship test to get Argentine nationality, which would be passed on by his parents anywhere in the world. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

He's more Argentine than Italian, as birth and distant descent do not confer nationality in most countries, but birthplace of parent does. I'm sure dual citizen is accurate, but we're well into the territory of 'more than 1 nationality = drop the adjective'. Crowsus (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

BDFA says he is Italian - as do non-Argentine sources, such as Soccerway. I don't think it's ambiguous here. GiantSnowman 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Algeria–Egypt football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algeria–Egypt football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

Left guide (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Riyad Mahrez place of birth

@Nathan2718: is edit warring here and trying to change the place of birth - please see Talk:Riyad Mahrez#Place of birth, all input welcome to sort this. GiantSnowman 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Tunisia football "rivalries"

I came across a set of articles for purported "rivalries" involving Tunisia that look flimsy on the surface as far as passing WP:GNG, being almost entirely synthesized via ref-bombs of match reports and stats databases:

• Algeria–Tunisia football rivalry
• Egypt–Tunisia football rivalry
• Libya–Tunisia football rivalry

I've considered AfD but haven't had the time to do a full WP:BEFORE search yet. What do others think? Left guide (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and while BEFORE should not be overlooked, clearly the creator has made no effort to demonstrate notability when mass-creating, so would probably also ignore any improvement tags, so AfD is appropriate IMO to either prompt action or lead onto removal if appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)