Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Latest comment: 5 hours ago by Nfitz in topic Birth date of George Raitt

WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Gareth Bale's status as a LAFC "player" in 2023?Edit

Can we get some consistency on the status of a player retiring on (effectively) January 1, but being listed as a player for a club for that year? We had this convo previously, but no majority was reached.

In short, the facts that we can all agree on are these. Bale last played domestic football in the 2022 MLS season, last played international football in the 2022 FIFA World Cup, was contracted to LAFC until June 30, 2023 and retired in January 2023, before the 2023 MLS season started. This seems rather illogical to show his international career ending the year of his last game for Wales, but not the year of his last game for LAFC.

Additionally, we don't have specific dates of retirement for players who played decades ago, so we have their careers listed by the dates of their first to last career matches - Why is Bale's different? I'm sure players in the past retired after injury and realising a year on from their last game that they couldn't continue their careers.

Pinging @RedPatch, GiantSnowman, Dr Salvus, Amakuru, Mattythewhite, Spike 'em, Ortizesp, Joseph2302, BlameRuiner, Iggy the Swan, Muur, Nehme1499, Footwiks, and Daemonickangaroo2018: - people who responded last time.

Let's try and figure this out. - J man708 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view is that it should say only 2022. Especially when it's so close to Jan 1. I'd view it a bit differently if he waited until pre-season in March, but clearly there was no involvement in team activities in 2023. Showing only 2022 is most beneficial to the reader, as it better displays what actually occurred. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees because we're getting too hell-bent on specifics rather than WP:COMMONSENSE. Here's a couple other examples, in North America, clubs sometimes only announce which players they've picked up and which they declined that season's contract option in early January. We don't include 2023 in their club end dates, because common sense tells us that their contract ended Dec 31, 2022 (since their 2023 option was declined); but it was only announced on say January 3. Similarly for players who agreed to join new clubs for 2023, but the announcement came in say December, we just list 2023 as the start date with the assumption the contract begins Jan 1, even if it's not specifically stated, because that makes the most sense. RedPatch (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. UP to 2022 sounds sensible. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pretty sure that was a consensus for 2023 and the fact one guy keep bringing it up is annoying. this is like the 4th time. if a guy breaks his leg in jan 2022 and doesnt play for a year and released in june 2023 your logic is to list 2022. or back up gks who play 0 games for 5 years. the football infobox says "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, one per attribute, earliest to latest." he was contracted till 2023. its as simple as that. try and get the template changed with admin permission but until such time the rules are contracted years. if you want to push it to last played...youre opening up a wormhole for saying a goalkeeper as 2017 instead of 2023 because he played 0 games in that period. you lose. bale was contracted till 2023 and retired in 2023 and the literal rules say that counts to end it as 2023. stop bringing it up every 3 weeks. the previous comment mentions expiring on december 31 2022, and well...thats 2022. not 2023. not the same. if bale died on jan 1st you write jan 1st, you dont put december 31 cuz he only just got into 2023 but you dont wanna count it as 2023 cus it only just started. he retired in 2023. regardless of whatever anyone can say, the template is very clear that because he was contracted in 2023 it says 2023 if instead he was sold mid jan you wouldn't even question it. this is important because of siuations where goalkeepers or injured players go years without playing matches or what if he had signed for someoen in 2023, broke his leg, never played, and then leaves. your logic is you cant even list him as a player of that team because he played 0 matches despite being signed for a year. the box is contracted years. some players go out on loan then proceed to play 0 matches cuz it turns out their terrible but this would mean you wouldnt' list him at all having played 0 games. whether concensus or not, the rules say 2023Muur (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
REPLY - Heads up? Your hyperbole is ridiculous. This is the second time I've brought this up, not the fourth. It was also four months ago, not three weeks. And on top of that? The main idea is that consensus changes - That's why things get brought up again further down the track. - J man708 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2023, Bale was still a footballer contracted to a team so the infobox should reflect that. Also, consensus is not about majority. 20 people can argue against something and one be in favour and the consensus could be with the one because they have the stronger argument. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur fully with the above two comments. Please stop recycling these edits hoping they will slip through unnoticed . Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think 2023 can be considered as the end date as the contract with LA was supposed to end in June 2023 per opening edit on this section. Up to 2022 and retiring on 9 January 2023 sounds a bit different to me. I am aware it would not be possible for any appearances made in 2023 due to the extreme weather in the US which means no fixtures for any team plus the retirement announcement due to fitness so some users agree on 2022. I, however, say 2023. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i suppose its possible the user in question has only brought it up for the second time but the thread itself has been brought up like 8 times since he retired. this isnt the second time it's been discussed and the last time i recall was it being ended instantly upon it being brought up that the rules for footballer infoboxes states that its the contracted years and he was contracted in 2023. one user kept bringing it back up and its super annoying that such a thing keeps coming back up when the rules are quite clear. push for a change on what the template says but if you do manage it then it would cause things such as not listing rob green as a hudderersfield or chelsea player as he warmed the bench and played 0 times for both. last played not last contracted is a slippery slope and is a big issue for third choice gks cuz they just dont play. some go 5 or more years without playing a game and we cant just pretend theyre not part of the squad. it says contracted for a reason. this logic puts green retiring two years before he officially did because he played 0 times in his last two seasons. we cant pretend he wasn't contracted to those teamsMuur (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's just it. Bale is NOT part of the squad for 2023. - J man708 (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of January 3, 2023, he was included till he was removed since the retirement announcement. But certainly not in the current Los Angeles FC season for that reason. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is saying to alter backup keepers and change it to only appearance dates. The point is to show basically what was really the case which was Bale was not a member of the roster for the 2023 season (which begins late Feb/early March). This is not a mixed year season like European leagues. He never took part in any team activities in 2023. Reserve keepers most certainly did. Ie. They were on the bench, participated in trainings, etc. You're trying to use an extreme example to push your point. There is a clear distinction. RedPatch (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His retirement was effective from 1 January 2023, which means he was not officially a player at any point on that date. His career ended the moment the clock turned from 23:59:59 on 31 December 2022 to 00:00:00 on 1 January 2023. – PeeJay 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your source for this? His retirement was announced on 8 January. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My source was my own flawed memory. Disregard. – PeeJay 13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so do we count sala as a cardiff player? he never even got to cardiff.Muur (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, stick to the topic at hand. You keep throwing out unrelated points which are separate discussions entirely. This discussion is focused on Bale and whether we should include 2023 in the infobox due to the date of when he left the team due to a retirement. Remember, wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Each guideline can be altered depending on differing circumstances. And many North and South American and Austrialian leagues have a key distinction from European leagues. They are single calendar year seasons (ie. 2023) not cross-calendar seasons (ie. 2022-23). I'm not saying that's the reason it shouldn't, it's just it needs to be approached from a different angle before a decision can be made. Given he left well before pre-season even started, there is no one who would view him as being part of the 2023 squad. The discussion about honours comes up all the time, if it should be included for a mid-season departed player, etc. I don't think anyone would disagree, if LAFC wins anything this year, no one would argue for Bale to get the honour included because he simply wasn't a part of the squad. He wasn't a mid-season departure, he wasn't even a pre-season departure. He was an off-season departure. If a player left a European club on 2 July, would anyone consider him to have been part of that year's team. Their memory would just consider him as having left after the previous season. Whenever we see players agree to deals before 1 July (ie. 15 June), don't we usually just tell people to wait until 1 July to add it to the infobox, even if there's no source stating specifically that that's when the deal starts. We do it because it better reflects reality. Our goal here is to help the reader. How does having 2023 as the end date in any way help the reader. You see 2022-23 on Bale's page (knowing that seasons are calendar seasons) and the reader assumes he must have played during both the 2022 and 2023 seasons. Especially five/ten years from now, when things fade from memory and we forget he retired right after the world cup (which people will also might forget the world cup happened in december on first thought since this was a one-off). What benefits the average reader - it's a 2022 date, because that better represents his involvement with the club. It's a principle we've been following with American leagues all the time. Technically, MLS contracts expire November 30 and you see players agreeing to contracts for the following season in December all the time. There's never been any conclusive indication when these contracts take effect whether it's instantaneously or on 1 January, but on wikipedia, we've always just put the start date of the new year (ie. 2023- in the infobox), because that is the most helpful to any reader RedPatch (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well, bale's contract didnt expire in november. he had another year. Muur (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if his contract expired in 2025, would we put 2025, despite him retiring years before that? No, we wouldn't, because that would be inaccurate to report his career. What most accurately portrays his career to the reader? It is 2022. I never said his contract expired in November. I raised that as players who signed contracts in December after having them expire in November, we put 2023 as the start instead of December as it more accurately represents their playing career, and thus is more helpful to the reader. RedPatch (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't benefit the reader to say 2022 if his career actually ended in 2023. Readers understand that having a year in the infobox doesn't necessarily mean the player played a match for that team in that year, it just means they were contracted. As an example, Kris Boyd has 2006 as the end of his first Kilmarnock spell even though he never played a match for Kilmarnock in 2006 (granted that's a transfer rather than a retirement but the essence is the same, he left the club before they played any matches that year). As for WP:VERIFY, we should only be using the date of retirement as anything else wouldn't be verifiable. Bale retired in 2023, it really is that simple. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where's the consistency between Bale's retirement showing 2023 and every player before say 1990, whose career matches dictate his years? I'm sure there's been past players who have retired after January 1, with no games played, who'd be listed by their last match played? It's inconsistently biased towards modernity. - J man708 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, it has to be verifiable. If you can verify a player was with club X in 1957 but never played for them and retired at somepoint that year then 1957 should be used and not 1956 just because he didn't play a game. If you can only verify a player's time at a club through their appearances then that's all you can use. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we know a player retired on a certain date, that's the date we should put. We've only ever used the dates of players' first and last matches as a matter of convenience when we don't have reliable info about when they signed contracts or "officially" retired. – PeeJay 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with that is that works for the 1% of players whom we can confirm the exact retirement date of and leaves the other 99% of players to their assumed dates. Seems ambiguous to me. Remember, while you and I know that Bale retired after January 1, 2023 and had contracts still valid and whatnot, what is the average reader going to take from this, especially when his career table only shows up until 2022?...
Can we show 2023 in his career table for consistency, as apparently he was a player during this year, despite clearly not being a player in this year? - J man708 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are arguing against WP:V : you are saying we shouldn't use verifiable information where we have it because it is possibly inconsistent with cases where we don't. The solution to your quandary about the tables is to explain when he retired in the prose of the article, which the career tables and infobox are meant to summarise, not supplant. Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not arguing against WP:V, but arguing for a more consistant approach. It's verifiable that Michael Jordan was baseballer, but we know it's incorrect to list him as one - WP:VNOT. Gotta remember to think of the end user who wants the info of his playing career, not some technicality that he "played" in 2023, without ever being near a football pitch. - J man708 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about international caps. A player could have had their last cap in 2017, and then appeared on the bench but didn't enter the game in 2018 and 2019. We have verifiable evidence that they were in the matchday squad in 2019, yet we still close it at 2017. There's inconsistencies all around. So, a player could internationally appeared on the bench for two years but we won't list it, but a guy like Bale announces his retirement shortly after new year (which he probably waited until the Christmas/New Years/early window cycle ended, so that the news would actually reach the audience as people may not pay as much attention over the Christmas holidays plus the first few days of the window are hectic) and we list 2023 despite his career effectively ending at the end of 2022. There's inconsistencies all around. We can have Verifiable evidence that a player was in an international squad, but this project doesn't care for that and lists his last appearance, but suddenly a player announces at the beginning of 2023 that he has decided the 2022 year would be the end of his career and he will not play this year, but we're supposed to put 2023 for that? RedPatch (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is going way off subject. This thread is meant to be about Gareth Bale, and in that respect is redundant, as the present article conforms entirely to long-agreed policy. If you want to change the policy, you need to start a discussion on the talk page for Template:Infobox football biography, which currently states in respect of the (club) year field: that this should include “A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club” and for the nationalyears field: “A list of years that the player has played for each national team”. [My bold] Consequently, further discussion here is pointless. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well except that the long agreed upon consensus for calendar-year season leagues (e.g. MLS) is to only include the years in the infobox during which the team was actually playing e.g. if a player was with a team in 2022 but left for a new team in February 2023 before the league started up again, we generally put the closing date as 2022 for the previous club. I think that is in part due to the way this particular league works (because players sign with the league rather than individual teams), but this applies to all players playing in those leagues. This applies to more than just Bale, it is just because he is such a high profile player that ended his career in MLS that this is getting so much attention. Jay eyem (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't going off topic, both Jay eyem and RedPatch get the point I was making intially. It's only "about" Gareth Bale because he's the highest traffic article where this issue stems. - J man708 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if the infobox is to be defined by contract years, then a player like Zlatan’s time at Manchester United should be shown on two different lines, as he was released and was a free agent before signing a completely unrelated contract to his previous one. But, we show it as one continuous stint in his infobox because this disambiguates it for the reader - a reader who I assure you doesn’t give a shit about contracts and wants the years starting and ending Zlatan’s playing career with Manchester United. Seeing as this is the case, then it’s stupid to ignore contracts for Zlatan’s article but stick to the letter of the law on Bale’s - J man708 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zlatan's contract with Man Utd expired and then was re-signed during the same transfer window. Sure, he was technically a free agent for like two months, but that's kinda irrelevant. – PeeJay 10:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, we ignore 2 months of free agency, but show a week of Bale being an LAFC player? Seems arbitrary as hell. -J man708 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vote keeping his career until 2023. I'd rather go by contract date than cap date. Ortizesp (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not really going by "cap date" so much as "seasons on roster". He was only on the roster for the 2022 season. He basically announced in the first week of January that he was nullifying his 2023 contract year and not using it. RedPatch (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a hypothetical. If a player with a season remaining on their contract on a European team announces their retirement on 3 July this year (prior to the club beginning their pre-season training), would you include a row in their career statistics table for the 2023-24 season? Would you consider them to be a squad member for the 2023-24 season despite the club never commencing squad activities for the upcoming season yet? RedPatch (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was under contract in early 2023. In his infobox, I'd write [year of start]-2023. As for the "season on roster", he neither received any call-up, nor commenced any team activity, so I'd not write his name in the season table. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick BamfordEdit

Hello, there appears to be ongoing content dispute between anonymous IPs and me/Mattythewhite recently. I've reverted this three times already, all of which relates to the end date for England national football team. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends on your view on this discussion. There is no clear decision on the final part : whether to keep the team recent call-ups in line with the player infoboxes and how long for. I tend to leave players for 2 years after last call-up, but that is partly because they just get reverted without explanation if I do earlier and I just can't be arsed arguing all the time! Spike 'em (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We haven't reached 2 years since August 2021 which I see was the date for his last call-up. I have seen the discussion which seems reasonable for the 2 year consensus. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a few of you are probably aware, the content dispute is still ongoing and therefore I requested protection a while ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reverts are still continuing, and I feel I've done more than enough in terms of patrolling this page recently, if some could be kind enough to intervene. Mattythewhite (talk)
Also I wondered if the numerous IP addresses and Lewis de Black are the same person or not. It does appear the same editing behaviour is involved between them. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reverts are still continuing and Lewis de Black has shown a WP:TE attitude at their TP. Further protection requested. Eagleash (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this request will be more successful, since the one I requested resulting in the IP block range does not appear to be enough. I was only aware of the block when Eagleash pointed the relevant section confirming admin action was done. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iggy the Swan: Initially the increased level was declined, as somehow I got the level wrong (!) but as you know the user is now blocked for EW... only 24 hours, but it is something and an Admin is now aware. Eagleash (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I filed in the extended confirmed protection as Lewis de Black is not qualified for that level yet but we are extended-confirmed users. I wouldn't say that level was wrong to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i guess its time to decide what to do with the two burys now theyre merging into one teamMuur (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this. Affects Bury F.C. and Bury A.F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marge the articles--EchetusXe 08:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page histories cannot be merged. My suggestion - possibly controversial - would be create a new article for the new club, and retain the existing two articles as the historical entities. GiantSnowman 16:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there isn't a new club – Bury AFC will just merge into the original club (see "The historic club, winners of the FA Cup in 1900 and 1903, will return to the football pyramid at the ninth tier, taking up AFC Bury’s place in the Premier Division of the North West Counties League"). My personal preference would be to have a single article, which details the fact that supporters set up a separate club (AFC) to play while the original was inactive (effectively as a placeholder), but then Bury FC took over AFC's place in the leagues once the merger was agreed. Number 57 16:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably best to move Bury A.F.C. to Bury F.C. (2019) or similar - as far as I understand, they are different clubs like the two Halifax's. Someone probably knows this situation of the two Bury's better than me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bury a.f.c have been officially given the history and memorabilia of the original bury, so they will be merging together as one team that has the history of both teams. but theres still the fact that afc were their own team for a few years so its tough to figure out the correct solution. bury fc are absorbing afc with bury continuing forward in afc's place but the new combined club will have the history of both teams. its a unique new situation that has never happened before as the new team has been given the old team's history by the fa but then its considered to be the team from the 1800s but also the team from 2019 at the same time. i guess the two pages could be merged into one as well with a lot of edits all over the bury f.c. page to explain the situation...but the complication arises at the fact they were separate teams for 4 years. in essence, going forward, the history is that there were never two teams. only bury f.c. under a different name for a few years under retconned history. anything going forward if continuing the pages would be the same on both teams and that obvioulsy isnt ideal. i guess the best solution is to merge both pages which also effects any players from the last 3 years and just make sure to explain whats going on to an accetable manner. it would be kinda like if serbia and montenegro re-combine as one team and then keep both team's historys from when they were apart. whatever the solution, Bury A.F.C. will no longer exist as its own team as of july 1st 2023. they are absorbed into the original bury who will gain their 2019-2023 season stats as their own/the 2019 club gain 150 years of history. (although technically, the fa have approved afc gaining the history of bury fc but they haven't decided if they will allow them to be renamed to bury fc. its possible they go forward as bury afc if a name change is turned down but theyre still being absorbed into the original club so if a name change is rejected its the original bury under the name bury afc. either way, if only one article remained, you would keep the article for the team from the 1800s as the combined entity has the history going all the way back to the 1800s)Muur (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) As the two clubs were never active (in playing terms) at the same time, I would simply merge the article on the newer club into that of the older one, which will give us one continuous playing history. We will have the playing history of the "old" club up to 2019, followed by the playing history of the "new" club from 2019 to 2023, and then the playing history of the "old, now incorporating the new" club from 2023 onwards. The wranglings about the shell of the "old" club from 2019 to 2023 (which frankly are covered in far far too much detail at present) could be incorporated into the same 2019-2023 section as the actual playing history of the "new" club or covered in a separate section in the merged article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I suggest we simply leave the AFC article alone, as it was a separate club, and any new edits can be to the FC article. No need to merge anything, if we explain on each page why we have two separate articles. GiantSnowman 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
itd be fair to also have two pages like that yea but, the original bury also get the history between 2019-2023. e.g. any playing records for those years would count for the original bury too. the manager, Andy Welsh, will have been considered to have managed the original bury from 2019-2023. there's at least one player, Aidan Chippendale, who played for both bury fc and bury afc and now his 7 appearances for bury fc and 28 for bury afc will be considered as 35 for bury fc due to the merging. burys social media pages are even using the original bury fc club logoMuur (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with GiantSnowman. Keep the AFC article as a separate article (but linked from the Bury FC article) so that readers can read about the early playing history of the 'new-era Bury' (I edited both articles extensively throughout the period). As Bury AFC achieved a league title and a promotion to the now-merged club's current position in the pyramid (the side also advanced through several rounds of the 2022-23 FA Cup qualifiers and the FA Vase), and there were tensions between the two supporters' groups prior to the merger, I think we should retain the AFC article for detailed context, and then provide appropriate links between the two articles. Explanations about Andy Welsh and Aidan Chippendale can be added via footnotes. (All this assumes that the FA approves the merged club's proposed name change to Bury FC). Paul W (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
interestingly it seems there's a precedence before i was unaware of with darlington as mentioned here. Talk:Bury_F.C.#Consensus_to_maintain_the_1885_formation_date_of_Bury_FC_post-merger the situation is pretty much the same and both articles were merged toegether upon darlington and Darlington 1883 being merged together so for consistency it seems the correct solution, due to darlington, is to merge bury afc into bury fc. i didnt realise this had already happened, so in ortherwords- merge afc into fc with one article/team going forward provided the fa approve the change. darlginton were kicked out the league but still existed. darlington 1883 were formed but the original still existed. then the fa allowed 1883 to gain the history of the original and went forward as darlington. huh. this is the exact same situation as bury. see Darlington F.C. Muur (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus to remove redirect at 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasonEdit

All other PL teams' season articles are already created and this has even more coverage than those articles. It's just that this article has been specifically targeted. We are in the middle of May and there is only 1 matchday left until the end of the season. This is getting ridiculous. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you found any independent significant coverage since you raised this 3 days ago? Spike 'em (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I've just restored another redirect, so Spurs don't feel left out. Spike 'em (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is unclear if they will be in Europe or not but it should not be too long for this season page to be an article itself to be in line with the rest of the club season articles. Same applies to Everton and the other relegation candidates when we don't know which division they are going to be in next season. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted on the talk page, User:Spike 'em They provided sources a day ago, a couple at least look good. So can you revert? Also, this is starting to look a little unusual, given you created 2018–19 Crystal Palace F.C. season on May 9th, and 2019–20 Crystal Palace F.C. season on May 12 - both far less significant seasons and both in worse state than the Hotspur 2023-24 article when they were created! Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. how are these far less significant? All 3 are for teams who (will have) finished the previous season mid-table in the PL.
  2. one was done after the last game of the season, the other in the week leading up to it, so at a similar point as we are at now.
  3. me wrongly creating a poorly sourced article in the past is not an excuse for someone else to do the same now.
the sources provided seem to give details of a player leaving at the end of this season and the other focused on where they will finish this season (with the implications for next season). I'm not sure any of them can be considered SIGCOV of the next Spurs season, but if others feel differently then I'm not going to argue. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because people created articles way too early in previous seasons, that doesn't justify doing it again this season. Frankly all of this mass creation of future football events/seasons with no known information is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's ridiculous. It is so editors have a place to update information as it is released, instead of waiting until there's a certain amount and then creating in one go. This easier I'm sure on many editors' time (which is voluntary as is). Now that we have draft options, that might be the better way to go per this argument, but I think it's a process that takes time for editors to get used to. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You lead with far less significant? My logic though was that Tottenham had a European spot next season. Looking at the table, I hadn't realised that Tottenham had pissed it all away in the last fortnight. Good grief - Brighton & Hove Albion in the Europa League? Hell has frozen over! :) Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, we still have WP:NSEASONS, however the wording there doesn't include English football league which is pretty bad. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned on the relevant page, , these are covered by this clause, though not explicitly: Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. The guideline does not remove the need to have SIGCOV nor does it suggest quite when the season does become notable. Spike 'em (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Wanda Rozwadowska have an article?Edit

Does anyone think these sources for Wanda Rozwadowska is enough to justify a wikipedia article. Profile - Canada Soccer , blackcrows names Wanda Rozwadowska as their new Global Chief Commercial Officer. – Mountain Women Magazine , #4 Pilots dismantle #12 Huskies 4-0 - University of Portland Athletics ( , COLLEGES: SOCCER; No North Carolina In Women's Final - The New York Times ( , Women's Soccer Shut Down by Defending National Champions - Gonzaga University Athletics ( , Blackcrows Names Wanda Rozwadowska As New Global Chief Commercial Officer ( Dwanyewest (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not based on those sources. There is a brief profile from one of her teams, a few mentions of her name on match reports and a a couple of rehashes of a press release regarding her appointment to a position completely unrelated to her soccer career. Spike 'em (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's always better to judge once a draft has been created, but I agree she des not appear to be notable. GiantSnowman 09:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caroline Weir's place of birthEdit

An IP address claiming to be her mother started a discussion on Talk:Caroline Weir about the place of birth - it is claimed "Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley" was said as part of the opening edit though some sources say Dumfermline, a fair distance away from Paisley. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks the correct action of simply removing the place from the article is correct. As User:Crowsus notes (and I assume they are correct), the only official birth record is for the Paisley area - making it very likely that the claim is correct! I suppose you can just put in Scotland ... Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I'd go with Scotland in that field, as that is not in dispute / doubt and it looks a bit weird empty. The categories can be left as Dunfermline / Fife as she certainly grew up there from a young age. Crowsus (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll agree with just Scotland until something definite appears on the internet at a later date. You can't be born in two places (or have two birthdates in the case of other dob issues going around in the past). Also I can't guarantee in saying the OP of the section has seen any responses on the talk page yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Ruiz articleEdit

I would deeply appreciate it if someone would look at the article for Honduran youth international David Ruiz- which is titled David Ruiz (soccer) - and tackle the concerns I left on the talk page. M89565c (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. RedPatch (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023–24 West Ham United F.C. season and 2023–24 Crystal Palace F.C. season should be moved into draft spaceEdit

User:Spike 'em's reasons for moving 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season into draft space (Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season), namely no independent significant coverage, also apply to the 2023–24 West Ham United F.C. season and 2023–24 Crystal Palace F.C. season articles. (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a copy of the Palace one in draft space already. I tried restoring the previous redirect earlier in the week, but that was undone, and I'm not getting into an edit war over it (the Spurs one had a consensus to redirect via the AfD). Spike 'em (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clubs needing English football updaterEdit

There's a lot of articles I made for new clubs coming into the senior system in England last season that I didn't use the {{English football updater}} template in. Retrospectively, I should've done it (no idea why I didn't to be honest). But if someone could update the following clubs to have the template with their league positions for 22/23, it'd be massively appreciated. I can source the league positions if needed, just doing my head at the moment trying to comprehend that template whilst I'm jetlagged.

Hartpury University F.C., Heacham F.C., Basildon Town F.C., Cannons Wood F.C., Stanway Pegasus F.C., Euxton Villa F.C., F.C. St Helens, Ashville F.C., Foley Meir F.C., Stockport Georgians A.F.C., Boro Rangers F.C., Chester-le-Street United F.C., Prudhoe Youth Club F.C., Teignmouth A.F.C., Bude Town F.C., Ringmer A.F.C., AFC Whyteleafe, Bermondsey Town F.C., Eaton Socon F.C., Moulton F.C., Southwell City F.C., Nailsea & Tickenham F.C., Shirehampton F.C. and Spartans Youth F.C. all need this template.

Massive thanks if someone's able to do it. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added it to all the articles listed. I've also got a draft of the full 2022–23 final positions and new divisions for 2023–24 (which includes all the newly promoted clubs) in the sandbox of the updater template. Just waiting for the results of the play-off matches this weekend before making it live. Number 57 16:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're a hero. Will crack on with the articles for the new clubs for next season after this weekend then. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on FIFA World Cup honoursEdit

For the honours section on player articles, do we include fourth place finishes for the FIFA World Cup? I assumed we wouldn't but they're included on some of the 1990 England team such as Gary Lineker and Chris Waddle Michaeldble (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not an 'honour'. GiantSnowman 14:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Michaeldble (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move of Roger SchmidtEdit

Roger Schmidt (manager) - I reckon this probably needs user consensus first because he has played over 200 competitive matches (according to the infobox). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should probably be at Roger Schmidt by now as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schmidt is definitely more notable as a manager than a player, and an even cursory check of where he played should make that fairly obvious. His 200+ appearances were mostly in third division of German football at a time when it was still organized into multiple regional leagues rather than one national one, and still had a good number of semi-pro clubs. Compare that to his managerial career where he's competed in the top flight in five different countries. Assuming we don't treat him as the primary topic, the hatnote should probably be football manager. To me anyway, the term manager, unqualified, suggests a business person rather than sports person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also: Talk:Roger Schmidt (academic) where he was originally titled as Roger Schmidt (football manager). Pinging @Ortizesp: who moved the article to the footballer identifier from "football manager". Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes, manager does seem wrong - we don't have a Steve Cooper (manager) page, he belongs at Steve Cooper (football manager).
Third division football definitely less notable than the top division when he manages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It remains standard for former players who have become managers to be named as 'footballer', even if their management career is more illustrious than the playing career... GiantSnowman 22:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree there Snowman. There are a good number of articles that use football manager as a disambiguation hatnote, many of whom have also had a playing career, so unless there's some prior consensus that I'm unaware of and that these pages are ignoring, this does not appear to be standard. It also probably shouldn't be, since it can misrepresent why the subject is notable. In Schmidt's case, it's not just that his managerial career is more illustrious, it's the only reason he's notable enough to have an article. Without it he's an unremarkable semi-pro footballer whose article would quickly be deleted, if it were ever created to begin with. What I think the standard ought to be is that either hatnote is fine for people who have been both managers and players, and it should not be changed without good reason, but that an individual being clearly more notable in one role than the other is a good reason to move the article to match that role. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'More notable' is subjective. If a person played for a youth team and broke their leg at 16 before becoming a top manager, then fair enough 0- but people like Steve Cooper and Roger Schmidt both had decent playing careers (5 and 19 years respectively). GiantSnowman 08:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why we should use the subject and not the profession as the disambiguator - since he's had a notable career as a player and a coach (and we have so many examples of others in this category), Roger Schmidt (football) is a far better title for the article than either Roger Schmidt (footballer) or Roger Schmidt (football manager). – PeeJay 12:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a look at "Category:English football managers", I recognise in many situations that those who are titled "football manager" don't have much of a playing career. Our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) only mentions manager once and I am unaware of another page which has naming conventions of manager. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guardiola and Copa del Rey 1997-98Edit

FC Barcelona won Copa del Rey in 1998. Pep Guardiola was part of the team for the whole season and played at least one match there. His official profile in website of the club recognized him as the winner of the cup in 1998. But Mattythewhite keep deleting it from his honour section. Should we remain it or remove it? Can the profile from the club's website be suitable source for that? NextEditor123 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diffusion of Category:English Football League clubsEdit

@Teterev53: has taken it upon themselves to diffuse Category:English Football League clubs into e.g. Category:EFL League Two clubs, and only include the league's current teams. My understanding was that the main clubs category was for all clubs to ever play in the league, and the current set up means some clubs will need to be recategorised every season with promotion/relegation. Is there any support for this, or shall we revert and delete the new cats? GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer returning these clubs into Category:English Football League clubs and Category:Premier League clubs as it was before Teterev53 butted in to change how these articles moved categories to where they are now. I also think consensus should have clearly been seen on a talk page for user agreement rather than taking upon themselves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree - change it back. I notice that Category:English Football League clubs still says at the top "This category is for all teams, past and present, that have played in the English Football League (EFL), formerly known as the Football League." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you propose to delete/upmerge Category:EFL Championship clubs (created not by me), or what? Teterev53 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, should include all teams that played there (like the template). Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Revert. Preferred it as an all-time category, not one that will need updating on an annual basis. Paul W (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly to revert? You didn't see the mess that was with these categories before. Do you propose to delete/upmerge Category:Former English Football League clubs (created not by me), or what? Teterev53 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember when I said discuss it here? I do, but it was just "nonsense". Seasider53 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nonsense is your edit [1] and summary because the season is over and all infoboxes are changed already (that club was relegated before). See the league parameter in Blackpool F.C. infobox which is equal EFL League One, not EFL Championship. Teterev53 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using "Former" here for clubs that used to be in a league is a misuse of "former" within categories. It’s used for entities which no longer exist such as countries which once existed but now don’t. It’s not used for something that was once something but now isn’t but still exists. For example there is no "Former Liverpool F.C. managers" or "Former association football goalkeepers".--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of now, there are dozens of former league clubs/teams categories. You can see (association football): Category:Former A-League Men teams, Category:Former Highland Football League teams, Category:Former League of Ireland clubs, Category:Former National First Division clubs, Category:Former Premier Soccer League clubs, Category:Former USL Championship teams etc. Also there are many such categories in other sports: Category:Former Liga ACB teams, Category:Former British Basketball League teams (basketball), Category:Former Kontinental Hockey League teams, Category:Former Liiga teams (ice hockey), Category:Former Mexican League teams, Category:Former Frontier League teams (baseball) and many others. if you want to reject such categories, it's need more complex decision for sports clubs categorization, not only about Category:Former Premier League clubs and Category:Former English Football League clubs categories tree. Note, the defunct clubs (not former) are categorized within Category:Defunct sports teams / Category:Defunct association football clubs. Teterev53 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and a lot of these categories contain defunct clubs or clubs which belonged to leagues that no longer exist. They are not for existing clubs allied with existing leagues.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the easiest way of merging the new cats back into Category:English Football League clubs - bot request? I don't have the time or effort to manually revert what is becoming increasingly clear was a very, very silly series of edits by Teterev53. GiantSnowman 18:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think that's it, should defunct clubs be both in the main category and the Defunct category, or just defunct? Crowsus (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't think that category should exist at all TBH – not done for other leagues as far as I'm aware. If they're in Category:Defunct football clubs in England, that's enough IMO. Number 57 21:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Empty the categories and then we can speedy them. GiantSnowman 21:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I know what you mean... But I'd say that's a separate debate / CfD, as it's existed since 2011. Crowsus (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Is the defunct intersection really needed? Aldershot F.C. is already in Category:Defunct football clubs in Hampshire et cetera. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put a CfD on Category:Defunct English Football League clubs. Crowsus (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of non-relevant info vs censorshipEdit

Hello all,

It's the second time I have been accused of censorship on S.L. Benfica related articles after I remove what I consider to be non-relevant content. This time, the phrase I erased is from Rui Costa's page, and it states the following:

During the 2022–23 winter transfer window, Costa promised not to release central midfielder Enzo Fernández unless a club paid the player's buyout clause, but Fernández left Benfica via negotiation on 31 January 2023, with Benfica paying to "intermediary services" for the transfer.

The user who threw the gratuitous accusations of censorship at me (SLBedit, the same one who had previously accused me of something similar) reverted my removal on the basis that "a transfer that could have ruined the whole season isn't irrelevant." I repudiate the fact he did not consider that my contribution was done in good faith, and I clearly do not agree with this reasoning. In the past, Benfica has transferred several key players in the Winter transfer windows (Nemanja Matić in 2013–14, Enzo Pérez in 2014–15, Gonçalo Guedes in 2016–17, etc) so a potential "ruinous" transfer is nothing new, it's just a common practice at the club. The only difference I see is the unfulfilled promise part, and keeping the sentence because of that makes it sound like there is some kind of agenda against the club's president/management.

I will not enter in a pointless edit war over this issue, but I would like to know if in fact that content has any encyclopedic value and if my action is disruptive (because I may be having the same approach in other articles). Besteirense (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see that a promise about a single transfer is notable enough to mention on the biography of a football manager. The transfer itself should be mentioned on the seasonal page for Benfica and the player page. Spike 'em (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it could go into a personality section or something, that the manager tends to lie.Muur (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot request for updating footballer categoriesEdit

Hello. A few days ago, based on this RfC, a request was filed for bot to update all the (1,138) categories that fall under the following types:

  • Category:Footballers in "country" to Category:Men's footballers in "country" (eg: Category:Footballers in Andorra → Category:Men's footballers in Andorra) and all the articles in these categories
  • Category:"nationality" footballers to Category:"nationality" men's footballers (eg: Category:Andorran footballers → Category:Andorran men's footballers) and all the articles in these categories
  • Category:Expatriate footballers in "country" to Category:Expatriate men's footballers in "country" (eg: Category:Expatriate footballers in Andorra → Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Andorra) and all the articles in these categories
  • Category:Footballers in "country" by club to Category:Men's footballers in "country" by club (eg: Category:Footballers in Andorra by club → Category:Men's footballers in Andorra by club) and all the articles in these categories
  • Category:"nationality" expatriate footballers to Category:"nationality" men's expatriate footballers (eg: Category:Andorran expatriate footballers → Andorran expatriate men's footballers) and all the articles in these categories

Subcategories will not be changed. There are some variations/exceptions when "soccer", "soccer players", and conventions set by some countries are used. All these exceptions, new content of the categories, and other relevant information can be found at User:Usernamekiran/footballer categories. I have created the program/bot for this task successfully. Kindly let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions. I will file a request for bot in a few days from now. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When does the season end?Edit

It seems a little illogical that we have managerial changes listed at 2023–24 EFL League Two#Managerial changes that took place before the playoffs for the 2022-23 season had even started. And I appreciate it seems that this has always been the case, looking at previous seasons.

For players, contracts end at the end of June, and "pre-season" starts when they return to training some time in June/early July (depending on the club. So how can May 8th be described as "pre-season" for the 2023-24 season? Gricehead (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I think it ends after the final whistle is blown; or at least once they've all left the pitch. The change took effect after the club's final game of the season. The previous managerial changes for that club were only listed a week earlier at 2023–24 EFL League Two#Managerial changes. Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all changed now too. It used to be 30 June, but we've since decided it's whenever people decide to make changes to articles, infoboxes, navboxes or templates. Could all change next season, though, so beware. Seasider53 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be 30 June... GiantSnowman 18:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get why people are including the prior to July changes as the next season will be the first season they are in charge. I get your "Pre-season" comment though for the position in table. Maybe it could be changed to "Prior to season" since pre-season insinuates its during their season preparation training. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
june 30. which includes loan players leaving their loan team.Muur (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This archived discussion explains certain things won't come into effect till 1 July, as well as the existence of text among certain club articles which, as Muur points out, says 30 June for some loan deals.
Having that in mind, some managerial changes may be in the wrong articles but that theme has been going on for years, e.g. in the 2019–20_EFL_Championship, it would appear eight managers left their clubs before 1 July which might have been considered as some event for the previous season. I can also see the template for the English football updater has changed so the top of certain articles have the updated divisions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Leicester City F.C.Edit

Leicester City F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birth date of George RaittEdit

Just wondering if anyone could point me to a definitive source that confirms the birth date of George Raitt, who was born in Scotland around 1888. Hack (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's definitely 14 August 1888, if you look down this source far enough, you will see the date they said he was born. It is already used as source [1] in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was looking for something that doesn't look like some guy's blog. Hack (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually looking at it again, I recognise this does seem more likely to be a blog instead of websites run by professionals. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure I could confirm it from documents on Ancestry, which I expect would put it at the Memoriam date, but I know that's not really what you're looking for. in terms of a ref...? Crowsus (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had a quick spy and yeah there is a shipping manifest from a trip back to the UK with his wife in 1959 giving that exact date (he left Plymouth for Melbourne in March 1913 on a ship called the Niagara, if that's of any interest). Happy to add the link in if you deem it suitable, but obviously and a primary source and stuck behind a paywall. Crowsus (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see an issue with using primary sources or paywall being an issue for something like this; especially as there are Ancestry accounts available through Wikipedia Library, so verification by another user can be done. Presumably his birth record is available from Scotlands People - yeah, there's only one George Raitt from that time period - George Peters Raitt - so if that is what is on the original, then his middle name is Peters not Peter; and the approximate location is northwest Glasgow. But without paying £1.50, it's not possible to see the record itself, and other details, other than the 1888 birth year; the birth certificate itself can be obtained for £12 + shipping. Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY only applies to living people, not deceased... GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that, @Nfitz:.
The Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages registry and newspaper obituaries have his age at death in June 1960 as 72, which doesn't tally with an August 1888 date of birth. Hack (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, User:Hack. Looking in Ancestry, his March 1959 shipping record from arriving by sea in London says 14.8.88. The 1901 Scotland census says he was 12 on census day (March 31, 1901). His March 14, 1913 sailing from Plymouth to Australia says he was 24. Those are all consistent with an August 1888 birth, but none are consistent with an age of 72 in June 1960. Switching to Find My Past ... ah, his September 1959 shipping record from London back to Australia also says 14.8.88. I think that clinches it, without having to spend the £12.
In my own genealogical research, I've found that when the death is reported, that the person reporting the death doesn't necessarily give correct birth information. Personally, when I reported my grandmother's death in England, you stand at the counter and fill in the form with the info; stuff isn't checked. I hope we got her birth date info correct, but the place of birth was a bit of a guess! Nfitz (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion, Botswana national football teamEdit

Greetings, while working to de-orphan articles, I'm finding a number of footballers who previously were members of Botswana national football team. Wondering if it would be acceptable to add a "Former members" section to the article? I am asking here because article's pageviews are One, and I want to do it correctly/or not. Please advise. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, I did wrote a proposal on national team's talk page, along with an example of that section contents. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Association football players by nationalityEdit

To prevent well intentioned editors from trying to diffuse the entirety of e.g. Category:English footballers into (questionable) subcats, all nationally categories in Category:Association football players by nationality should be tagged with {{Non-diffusing parent category}} - what is the easiest way of doing so? GiantSnowman 20:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AWBREQ. But do people check for those notices before categorising? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)
Well all the nationality categories are about to be split to men's/women's footballers per last year's RfC (see #bot request for updating footballer categories above). The new men's categories can be tagged with {{Non-diffusing parent category}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, as per BHG talk page, I have now (I think) fixed the articles for Northern Ireland. I am happy to manually add the Non-diffusing parent category tag to the nationality cats, won't take too long, but I'll wait til the Men's/Women's bot does its thing and then add it to both the men's and women's category for each nation (it might have to be removed from the existing non-gendered - but actually male - if that becomes an umbrella cat for both genders and all the rest). Crowsus (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]