Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Are these pages named correctly?Edit

I came across these two individuals named Ian Cameron. There are several people with that name, so Ian Cameron is a disambiguation page, but there are two who are involved with football (playing and then coaching, but to varying degrees). There is Ian Cameron (footballer) and Ian Cameron (association football coach). Ian Cameron (footballer) had a notable playing career over many years and is now a youth coach. Ian Cameron (association football coach) had a very limited playing career - one year at American fourth tier, before moving onto coaching, where he now coaches a fully professional club in the US. Should the latter be (footballer born 1988) because he did technically have a playing career, or is it fine as is? I think they are okay with their current dimambiguations, but figured I'd ask here anyways RedPatchBoy (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The disambiguations are incomplete. Both people were players and both have coached. I suggest move both to '(footballer, born YEAR)' as is standard, and redirect the old pages to a disambig page. GiantSnowman 09:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
RM discussion started at Talk:Ian Cameron (footballer)#Requested move 5 January 2021 for anyone interested. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this pair are father and son. The older Ian Cameron's page states he has a son named Ian, who played youth at Patrick Thistle FC in 2005 with this as the source (includes image). They're both from Glasgow. The younger Ian Cameron started college soccer in the US in 2007, which lines up with the 2005 source time wise. This is the younger Ian Cameron now (image) same person? RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Figured it out. They are father and son based on this source, which says he has a father named Ian and sister named Kayleigh which matches up with the elder's page which says he has two children named Ian and Kaleigh. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Linking nationality in the ledeEdit

Do we link "less-known" countries in the lede? @Willbb234 argues we should link to the Ivory Coast for Amad Diallo (diff), as "the Ivory Coast is small and relatively unknown so this link would be useful". Nehme1499 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You reverted without giving a reasonable justification. Please place the wikilink back in. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, not everyone will know that Ivorian means Ivory Coast. Obviously not needed for English/American/French, but for less well known country adjectives it makes sense. Joseph 2302(talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was following the already-established convention of not linking to nationalities in the lede, as is the case for Didier Drogba, Harrison Afful, Fandi Ahmad, and Hassan Maatouk (GAs), and Niels Bohr, Eduard Streltsov, and Fred Keenor (FAs). Nehme1499 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:OVERLINK says that major examples of countries shouldn't be linked. At some undefined point, you're supposed to link the country. Hack (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I would not link it. Kante4 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't link it either. We wouldn't link European nations so I don't see why we should apply a different standard to African nations. Also, it's not a 'small and relatively unknown nation' - it has a population of about 25 million. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Now we determine how well known a country is by looking at its population. Makes sense. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly: the whole thing is nonsense. Therefore, we should stay consistent throughout. What may be "unknown" to you is very well known to others. It's all very arbitrary. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Odilon Kossounou, Sinaly Diomandé, Kalpi Ouattara. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you trying to compare Featured Articles and Good Articles with stubs? I hope not... Nehme1499 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As many others state above, OVERLINK applies - which, in short, means no country names should be linked. GiantSnowman 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mm. Are you sure? As Hack wrote "major examples […] shouldn't be linked". So that would indeed leave us with the question what does not count as a "major example". That said I'd be fine with us just not linking any countries. (talk)
I'd say any country is a major example. Who are we to decide which countries are major and which are minor? GiantSnowman 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's no question that, for example, the United States is more commonly known than Djibouti. I would in fact argue a large percentage of readers wouldn't know of the latter. (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with GS here that all countries should be considered major. Though I would agree that the US could be considered major and Djibouti minor, there is no real way of defining which countries are major or minor without offending a hell of a lot of people. Also, who am I to say that the US is indeed more significant than Djibouti. To someone from Djibouti, Djibouti would be considered more important. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the argument that you can't draw a line which countries are major and which aren't, but I think the conclusion from this should be that we should link all the countries. --SuperJew (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Except OVERLINK specifically says not to link to countries... GiantSnowman 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
OVERLINK doesn't say not to link to countries, it says "[u]nless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked..." (emphasis mine). For example, a fair number of people would probably change "Nigerien" to "Nigerian" thinking it was a misspelling, when the two are demonyms for nationals of Niger and Nigeria, respectively. I would say that in this case, context is quite necessary and OVERLINK would not apply to the first instance in the lead identifying the subject's nationality; all subsequent instances would clearly fall under OVERLINK. Perhaps to solve the issue in its entirety we could write "Subject is/was a football/soccer player from nation" rather than saying "Subject is/was a demonym football/soccer player." — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
That is clunky wording. GiantSnowman 11:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: WP:OVERLINK says Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked [...] The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian), Yet as you said above how do we differentiate between major and minor? While you may say that all countries are major, I would counter that a majority of average readers of football-related pages probably don't know where are say Vanuatu, eSwatini, or Dominica. So we'd say link in those cases. Since we can't draw a line, we should IMO link all of the countries (and I think, as do you, that OVERLINK is wrong in this case). Also there is the case of Nigerien vs Nigerian as Jkudlick brought above. Another similar case could be Congolese vs. Congolese (for example Dieumerci Mbokani and Amour Loussoukou). Or another example Dominican vs. Dominican (for example Glenson Prince and Jonathan Faña). --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And yet you said I agree with the argument that you can't draw a line which countries are major and which aren't... GiantSnowman 11:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I did. And that's why I suggest linking all the countries. --SuperJew (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And that's why I said OVERLINK says not to do that. We're going round in circles. It is well established that we countries should not be linked, except in certain circumstances (historical country, for example). GiantSnowman 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You're missing the continuation: not to link unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article - if the nationality/country is important enough to include in the lede (which it is because it is very defining in soccer - decides what international team they can play for, visa quotas, there are categories for soccer players based on nationality, etc.) then it should be linked as it is particularly relevant to the context. --SuperJew (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Scorelines used in text.Edit

Hello. What is the correct order to write the scoreline of a match? There are five different cases to write down scorelines of a match. A match either ends in a draw, a home win, or an away win (but since we write from the perspective of one team) there is also away loss, and home loss. The question is, what do we write for each?
1. For a draw, there is no issue, it is a draw in both cases and it's simple.
2. A home win is simple, we just say "they scored in a 5–0 win over Example United".
3. Now here is the tricky part. For an away win, do we say "he made his debut in a 2–0 win over Example United" or "he made his debut in a 0–2 win over Example United"? Or "he made his debut in a 2–0 away win over Example United" or "he made his debut in a 0–2 away win over Example United?
4. Same kind of issue for an away loss. Do we say "they scored in a 1–5 loss to Sample City FC", "they scored in a 5–1 loss to Sample City FC", "they scored in a 1–5 away loss to Sample City FC", or "they scored in a 5–1 away loss to Sample City FC"?
5. Lastly, there's the issue of a home loss. Do we say "made his debut in a 2–0 loss to Example FC", "made his debut in a 0–2 loss to Example FC", "made his debut in a 2–0 home loss to Example FC", or "made his debut in a 0–2 home loss to Example FC"?
Please answer 3, 4, and 5 individually. And please ping me. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, a result should always be written with the higher score first i.e. "a 2-1 win" and "a 3-1 defeat". I would never ever say "a 0-2 win", irrespective of whether it occurred at home or away. As for the difference between "a 2-0 loss" and "a 2-0 home/away loss", I think either is perfectly acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, the higher score should be first. Reading they won 0-2 always sounds wrong to me. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I believe this has been the consensus for a while, albeit with correct dashes: "2–1", "3–1". :-) (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie:
  1. "he made his debut in a 2–0 away win over Example United"
  2. "they scored in a 5–1 away loss to Sample City FC"
  3. "made his debut in a 2–0 home loss to Example FC"
Nehme1499 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: @Nehme1499: @Struway2: Do we agree that the inclusion of home/away after the score line is optional (as in, saying a 2–0 loss or a 2–0 home loss is the same?) Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see the negative of adding "home" or "away". Might as well say "2–0 home loss" every time, instead of "2–0 loss" sometimes and "2–0 home loss" other times. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There isn't a negative, but it remains optional not mandatory.--EchetusXe 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Depends if it's important for the reader to know whether the match was at home or away: if it matters, include it, if it doesn't matter, don't overload the article with excess detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A question from non-native English speaker: is it even correct to say "made debut in a win/loss"? Shouldn't it be "made debut in a match/game/tie/(1st) leg (which <his team> won")? --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"made his debut in a win/loss" is fine. See for example this article, where the sub-headline says "Thiago Alcantara made his Liverpool debut in a 2-0 win over Chelsea" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

EFL Trophy notabilityEdit

Hello. I have a question regarding the notability of the EFL Trophy. Of course, if two clubs from the EFL League One play each other in it, the game is considered fully-pro and a player that appears in it is considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The issue is with U21 sides of EPL/Championship clubs. If, say, Manchester United U21 play against Plymouth Argyle, the match is not considered fully-professional, right? Because I have found instances where players who have played in such games have Wikipedia articles (like Hannibal Mejbri for example.) Should this article be moved to draftspace for now? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A player who only plays for Plymouth Argyle in the EFL Trophy against Manchester United U21 won't pass WP:NFOOTY, as you correctly state. However, you would still need to look at WP:GNG (which takes precedence over NFOOTY). It's possible that Mejbri passes GNG and can therefore stay in the mainspace (I haven't looked into him so idk). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, my understanding is EFL matches give notability as long as they are between fully professional teams - U21 teams, and team below the fifth English tier aren't fully pro - full list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. However, you can still keep a page without senior appearances as long as you pass Wikipedia's general notability criteria at WP:GNG. Mejbri fails NFOOTY, but passes NGNG - in fact there was a deletion nomination here [[1]] where the arguments were laid out and the page was voted to be kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Greek Football Cup honoursEdit

We really need a wider opinion on this one. (pinging involved users: @Abudabanas, Kyopa, and BEN917:) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion. Talk:Greek Football Cup#Statistics on performance by club section. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Debut with first team, sent to reserves, loaned out to other B teamEdit

Abdoulaye Dabo began his senior career at FC Nantes on 11 August 2018, playing 2 games. He was then sent to their B team, and made his debut on 15 September, playing there until 2021. Today, he was sent on loan (from Nantes) to Juventus, who sent him to their B team. Is the way the article is currently set up correct? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not have the senior Nantes team first? It's both the senior team and the team he played for first. --SuperJew (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Because otherwise it would look like he was loaned from the B team. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nehme - in these situations the B team has to go first, because they are not the party why loaned them out... GiantSnowman 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Dabo was not "sent to the reserve team" at Nantes, and the source provided does not say that. It says he played for the reserve team, which is perfectly normal in France, but not in Italy I understand, and does not confer any change on his status overall. Gricehead (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I made a sligt adjustment to the sentence. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should have Nantes B indented too, like a loan. --SuperJew (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
We already had this discussion here. For players who only played for 2 teams (A team and B team), the consensus was to not put any arrow, and to put the team with whom he debutted first above the other. No consensus was reached in the case of loans or transfers to other teams. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Roach (footballer)Edit

For any expert in early English football, can anyone take a look at this guy to see if he's notable? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, he isn't. He only played at a regional amateur level, so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, and there's no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. There's also a clear WP:COI in the creation of the article, and an insane level of irrelevant detail about his extended family (the fact that his grandson was Kerry Dixon's agent, the names of his great-great-grandchildren, etc), which wouldn't belong in the article even if he was notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Roach (footballer) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Also a conflict of interest here between the subject and the creator of the article. This editor has been warned about conflict before but has chosen to delete the warning from his talk page.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Early German footballerEdit

Can someone who is an expert on early German football take a look at these newly-created pages?

  1. Paul Imke
  2. Harald Krämer
  3. Alfred Kraus
  4. Ernst Kudrass
  5. Ludwig Schmitt (footballer)
  6. Bruno Goldammer

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Regarding what? The articles seem alright to me. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If they pass WP:NFOOTY and/or WP:GNG, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues says that the Bundesliga (founded in 1963) is fully-pro. So I don't know if the German championship pre-63 is also considered fully-pro or not. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If they played in the Bundesliga (Harald Krämer definitely did) then they are notable. If they pre-date that then they were unlikely to be professional, see Introduction of the Bundesliga. GiantSnowman 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No national league existed for more than half of German football history, there were only amateur or semi-professional regional leagues. Of course there are still notable players from this era, so WP:GNG is the deciding factor. Though I have not checked any historical sources, given the prominence of Eintracht Frankfurt at the time I would say it is likely the players meet GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are or Is (first sentence - North American teams)Edit

When starting an article, what type of verb should be used. User:Walter Görlitz and I disagree about this on Club de Foot Montréal. I believe it should be a case by case basis based on the situation. In this situation, I believe it should be CF Montreal IS a football club. whereas the other editor says that it should be CF Montreal ARE a football club. The latter sounds like incorrect grammar to me. If it was something like The New York Red Bulls then it would be Are, not when there is no The. There was a similar discussion previously here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_136#The_or_no_The about this, while Walter says this Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English argues for consensus to use "ARE", but I fail to see where a consensus was achieved there. Very few of the other MLS articles use ARE, the majority use IS. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PLURALS and Talk:Portland Timbers#Plural verb form for sports teams in American English are clear. If you want to change consensus, be my guest and grammar, it's not on my head. I too prefer "is" but @KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: have a different opinion. They also pointed to all NFL, NBA and NHL club articles as examples. It was my opinion that "are" is "international" (as can be seen at U2) while "is" is American. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've read that discussion and it seems to me that the discussion relates directly to the other discussion I linked. In terms, of Portland, since their name is Portland Timbers, it would be written as THE Portland Timbers are because of the use of the "THE". When the "THE" is not used it would revert to IS. There were only 3 of you involved, so that's not really a Wide consensus. Reading that, it seems like oknazevad agrees with my view here, given his view of Sporting KC which is the same style as CF Montreal. Furthermore, MOS:PLURAL says " In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames, plural verbs are commonly used to match e.g. the Heat are playing the Lakers". Hence Is should be used in this case for Montreal. CF Montreal is not referring to them by a 'nickname' since there is not 'nickname. The Portland timbers refers to them by the 'nickname' Timbers, hence the are. When it was the Impact that was a 'nickname' hence why it was are prior to the rename. This is all also part of the "The or no The" discussion I linked. NHL, NFL, MLB teams all use a nickname which is why they use Are. MLS teams only some use a nickname. With regards to NFL, there is an exception with the Washington Football Team. They do not have a nickname and the page thus uses is. as does Edmonton Football Team of the CFL. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
One exception in the leagues I mentioned, and only in NFL? And that's because of a local consensus that @Red Jay: explained here. So because of one team, all MLS (and apparently CPL) sides should follow that grammatical exception? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, all other NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA teams use a team nickname form. Not all MLS teams do. Teams like San Jose Earthquakes, Portland Timbers, Colorado Rapids, New York Red Bulls use nickname forms like all those teams (these teams would use plural form like those teams). The others like FC Dallas, Toronto FC, NYC FC use a singular form. Washington Football Team is an exception from the other NFL teams because they are the only NFL team to NOT use a nickname form. They are in line with the majority of MLS clubs in using singular city-based name form in their name. That is what I meant by exception. MLS wouldn't be following Washington, MLS teams that do not have a nickname based form would be following MOS:PLURAL. The Washington FT link you show refers to American_and_British_English_grammatical_differences#Subject-verb_agreement which contains a similar element as MOS: PLURAL which refers to team nicknames. Every American team they refer to is one that uses a nickname. the link from the WFT refers to this page that refers to the NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Utah Jazz, Green Bay Packers, all teams that use a nickname-form. MLS teams are not in this form and were probably overlooked in that because MLS at that point (and still is) not oone of the primary North American leagues. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
All MLS franchise articles did as of end of May 2020, but they have changed over time. As of now they do again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(discussion imported from:Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)
I think "is" is the correct verb in most cases. MOS:PLURALS only applies to team nicknames (e.g. "the Heat", "the Lakers"). Since "Toronto Football Club" is not a nickname, it should be treated as a singular and the opening sentence should read: Toronto Football Club is a … BLAIXX 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@KitHutch: and @Oknazevad: and most other professional team articles disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You are greatly mistaken. Other than the 25+ you changed today, most professional team articles do agree. BLAIXX 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
MLS and CPL are not the only professional team articles for North American sports. NFL, NBA and NHL all (save one exception) use "are". I, however, agree that it should probably be "is" in American English, but that is not the consensus that was reached above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
NFL, NBA, and NHL team names generally end with "nicknames" (e.g. New York Jets), that's why they are pluralized. My interpretation of the discussion above is that only teams with names like Portland Timbers should definitely be pluralized. For teams with names ending in "Football Club" there was basically no discussion and certainly not a consensus. BLAIXX 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
They are the common team names. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Jets is a nickname or why nicknames should be treated differently from legal names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
By "nickname" I am referring to the part of a team's official name that is not the city or a description. The MOS gives Lakers and Heat as examples despite being part of the official name. The reason why you treat nicknames differently is "a quirk of the language." Oknazvad elaborated more in their last two comments from May. BLAIXX 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(end of imported discussion)

The use of plural verbs for sports teams with a plural nickname is a quirk of North American English that is an exception to the general use of singular verbs for a collective noun. It comes from dealing with the awkwardness of having a sentence constructed like "The New York Giants is…", which just plain grates to any ear. It's not the use of the definite article that makes the difference, it's the plural nickname. When only the nickname is used as a short form, the plural is also used. When only city/state is used as a short form, singular is used, like any collective noun (New York is). Same with the wording "the team is". (The pattern is true for both US and Canadian usage, as the use of nicknames for sports teams is typically the same. "The Montreal Alouettes play in the CFL." But "Montreal plays in Percival Molson Stadium.")

This is in contrast to British usage which treats collective names as plural at all times, so they'd say "New York are". That is incorrect in North American English, though, and tips off that the wrong ENGVAR is being followed. This is accounted for in MOS:PLURALS already.

The question is what happens when the team's formal name doesn't include a nickname, like New York City FC, or Toronto FC. They should be singular. There is no nickname triggering the use of a plural verb. It's not like "Montreal Alouettes", but like using just "Montreal" on its own. If I were writing about Toronto FC, I'd write "Toronto FC is…" just as I would write "Toronto is…" when referring to the club. If I were to use their nickname (the Reds), I would write "The Reds are…" just as I would for other plural nicknames. The only difference Eid that the plural nickname isn't part of the formal name of the club, so it doesn't modify the use of the verb tense for the full name. So, in conclusion, the current lead of the CF Montreal article is incorrect, as it's using a plural verb for a collective noun that is itself not plural in form, which is incorrect in Canadian English. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In most cases, "FC" is a nickname in the North American context as it does not mean football club as it does in international English. That is an interesting point however. So "Toronto FC is ..." but "Seattle Sounders FC are ...", but I can accept that odd inconsistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(imported from Talk:Portland_Timbers#And_again,_the_verb_is_"are"_in_the_lede)

based on your discussion there, I accept the "nickname" guideline which would mean any team with only a place name and either "FC", "SC" or similar would use "is" while those with nicknames would use "are".
If I understand correctly, the following would use "are"
* Atlanta United FC
* Austin FC
* Chicago Fire FC
* Colorado Rapids
* Columbus Crew SC
* D.C. United
* Houston Dynamo FC
* Inter Miami CF
* LA Galaxy
* Minnesota United FC
* New England Revolution
* New York Red Bulls
* Philadelphia Union
* Portland Timbers
* Real Salt Lake
* Sacramento Republic FC
* San Jose Earthquakes
* Seattle Sounders FC
* Sporting Kansas City
* Vancouver Whitecaps FC
The following would use "is"
* CF Montréal
* Charlotte FC
* FC Cincinnati
* FC Dallas
* Los Angeles FC
* Nashville SC
* New York City FC
* Orlando City SC
* St. Louis City SC
* Toronto FC
I can make those changes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(end of import)

I would say that any team that solely uses an FC/SC/City/United/etc would definitely be part of the IS category, regardless of whether it stands for Football Club or for decoration. So I would add Atlanta United FC, Austin FC, DC United, Real Salt Lake, Sporting KC, Minnesota United FC, Inter Miami CF. Teams that use solely a nickname at the end would definitely be in the ARE group (Colorado Rapids, Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, New York Red Bulls) and would require a THE in front of the name. (Philadelphia Union, LA Galaxy, and NE Revolution could go either in either group depending on how its used, but I feel a THE+ARE combo is more appropriate, but if the THE is not used, it would have to be paired with IS) Teams in the Nickname FC form (Columbus Crew SC, Chicago Fire FC, Houston Dynamo FC, Sacramento Republic FC, Seattle Sounders FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC) are more ambiguous. I feel for that third group, the FC would change them to belonging in the IS group, but would be in favour of more specific discussion on those specific forms. For the first two groups, I personally feel there is solid consensus from all contributors. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that when a team name is used in a form of that ends in CF/FC/SC/City/[place], regardless of what precedes it, it should be treated as a singular. "United" is a bit more ambiguous for me but I'm fine with singular. BLAIXX 15:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I moved all the discussion here, so that if this issue comes up in the future it can all be combined into one area, and I feel referencing the FOOTY project is more appropriate than referencing a Timbers page RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote (for North American clubs)Edit

Establishing a vote option for the following: Pinging @Oknazevad:, @Blaixx:, @Walter Görlitz: and anyone else interested

Teams with ONLY a CF/FC/SC/City/United/etc before or after City name (ex. Toronto FC, CF Montreal, Real Salt Lake, DC United etc)

  • Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use is (ex. "Toronto Football Club is a professional...") BLAIXX

Teams with a Plural Nickname (ex. New York Red Bulls, Colorado Rapids, etc)

  • Use THE + ARE RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use The + are (ex. "The Colorado Rapids are a..." – this one is the most obvious to me) BLAIXX

Teams with a Non-Plural Nickname (LA Galaxy/Philadelphia Union/NE Revolution/Montreal Impact)

  • No preference RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use The + are by default unless there's local consensus on that page to do it the other way. BLAIXX

Teams with a Nickname followed by an FC (ie. Seattle Sounders FC)

  • Use IS RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Bad example. "Sounder" is singular while "Sounders" is plural. "Chicago Fire FC" would be a better example, if their common name were that, but it is still "Chicago Fire". I agree with the principle, but don't think there are any MLS sides that meet this criteria. Perhaps something in USL or CPL may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a bad example, this situation is whether the FC changes it. The plural or singular nickname is irrelevant as it is about the FC, in my view. I'm applying this case to all of Sounders FC/Fire FC/Dynamo FC/Republic FC RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Still undecided. BLAIXX 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussionEdit

  • Just to be clear, is this vote is only for US/Canadian articles? And if so please make that clearer. Because in British English, it should always be "are". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
DoneRedPatchBoy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • At the risk of both going off topic and opening a can of worms, I would suggest that there is some ambiguity in British English too, but it depends on the context and whether one is talking about the club or the team. Personally I would say "Gillingham are winning 1-0 against Liverpool" but I would also say "Gillingham Football Club was founded in 1893", not "were"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As an added point, this discussion is specifically about the first sentence of every article, not the remainder of the article. (Team Name IS/ARE a professional football team). I notice the majority of the English Premier League teams currently use IS in the first sentence RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. "Tottenham Hotspur FC is a football club ...", "Tottenham Hotspur are a football team ...", "Spurs are ...", etc. (e.g. see here) —  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasonEdit

I am struggling correcting the appearances/goals table, requesting some help to double check it out please. I think it's been oddly updated at times but some historical edits, but it's driving my head nuts trying to work out what's extra, missing, so can someone please help me. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can have a look at it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, thank you. Very much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve HoffmanEdit

  1. Steve Hoffman (American football); citizenship: USA, sport: American football
  2. Steven Hoffman (Australian footballer); citizenship: Australia, sport: Australian rules football
  3. Steven Hoffman (South African footballer); citizenship: South Africa, sport: association football

Are the three articles located correctly? While the first two sound right, I don't think "South African footballer" is correct (I would put footballer, born 1994). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they are correct based off this name discussion, Talk:Martin_Davis_(Jamaican_footballer) which involved an association football (soccer) player and an Aussie rules football player. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: It should really be South African soccer player per this RfC. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Number 2 should probably be (Australian rules footballer) to avoid any doubt. Hack (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Move/Rename a categoryEdit

How do you move or rename a category? Category:Montreal Impact should be renamed as the team has rebranded to CF Montréal. The subcategories as well. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CfD. If an article was moved some time ago, or via an RM, a speedy category move can be requested. However, it doesn't look like this is the case here, so you'd have to start a proper CfD discussion. Number 57 16:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyopa edit warring at Greek Football CupEdit

A follow on from my previous request. In spite of assistance from Crowsus, Kyopa is continuing to edit war at the page. I am on 3RR and fed up. Help needed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Evening. I must say that I don't intend to create any problems. I am trying to solve an unprecedented problem. Two teams that played a final were penalized and neither won the cup. What are we doing? We delete the event, the spectators who saw the final and we say it did not happen? No. From the moment the federation punished the teams, then both are lost (runner's up). Users Crowsus, REDMAN 2019 and two puppets are against me. But my evidence and common sense support my view. I did not ask for anyone's opinion because I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one. Thanks.--Kyopa (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
RSSSF does not assign the "runner-up" status to either team. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All of you need to stop edit warring and take this to the article talk page before you get blocked. GiantSnowman 21:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already at the talk page in some detail. Kyopa is the only one pushing for two runners-up. As Nehme has observed, the RSSSF ref doesn't assign runners-up for the year in question. Neither club claims it (or meantions any non-winning finals) on their website. So logically it should be left out of their total with a note explaining what happened, which is the edit I made. I was at 3RR by Friday so haven't touched the articles since then. And I'm sick of the conflict. This guy will not change (see "I believe that the opinion of many can not replace the opinion of one", the opposite of consensus) and is far beyond 3 reverts from the different editors who have a differing view. Hence REDMAN's request for more input/intervention. Crowsus (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
...and Kyopa took your advice to heart (edits again on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals). You know...GiantSnowman, you go and talk to him. I 'd really like to see that. It is quite possible to block yourself and sign out of Wiki after a while. Abudabanas (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked @Kyopa: from editing Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals for 48 hours, and told them to use this time to discuss the topic here, to reach consensus. If, after the 48 hours, they continue to edit disruptively, they will be blocked entirely. I suggest that @REDMAN 2019, Crowsus, and Abudabanas: you assist them by clearly explaining why the article should remain as you wish. GiantSnowman 08:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The two clubs have never claimed the runners-up honour, and, as far as I can tell, no one has ever attributed them with it either. Therefore unless anyone can find clear evidence that the clubs were awarded said honour I say that it shouldn't be on the page or the list. Just to make it clear, I am not supporting any deletion of the article about the final. No one can argue that the players and the fans never watched and or played part of the match. My point is that it was never finished, meaning that neither of the two teams won and neither was the runner-up. That is my reason and it is supported my multiple reliable websites and sources, such as the RSSSF one cited by Nehme above. I just hope that Kyopa will understand and agree with my and others opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

REDMAN 2019, Do not hope in me. You managed to punish me while you were cooperating with each other. The fact is clear. Two teams tried to win the cup. They did not succeed. What does this mean? That they failed (Runners up). It was not abandoned. The groups were punished. Like when they are zeroed in a match and their points are deducted. Anyone who can not understand this has a problem. I have none.--Kyopa (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you are saying that Crowsus and Nehme have a problem? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I know where you are going. I am a much older user than all of you. I do not tolerate cleverness and that is why I left the first time. I will probably do the same again.--Kyopa (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
deja-vu? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Nehme1499. I'm not old. I am a more experienced user who is tired of listening smartly. If I get the chance and they don't punish me again, we will dance one...dernière danse.--Kyopa (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations. But I am getting to the point were I do not care if you leave or go, as long as this is sorted out correctly. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you care about the article. So sure I'm not worried.--Kyopa (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Kyopa, I am tired of this. I am going to let others give you their opinion on this, and when they have finished telling you exactly what I have, please stop or I will take this to ANI. Or just ask the GiantSnowman here to block you which I am sure he'd be happy to do. That's the last from me for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article, from (date 26 June 2020, Nikos Velonakis) ,[2] a website owned by Olympiacos president Evangelos Marinakis. Third paragraph translation: The Red-Whites (Olympiacos) have 27 wins on 39 final attempts with a 69.2% winning percentage (note that the 1962 final against Panathinaikos that was abandoned and not replayed is not included). This article was also re-posted on [3] and [4] (webites of newspapers ΤΑ ΝΕΑ and ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ, also owned by Olympiacos president Marinakis). Added this on Talk page too. Abudabanas (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:UEFA player is brokenEdit

Template:UEFA player doesn't work any more due to external website changes.

For example: Anna Pilipenko: {{UEFA player|id=102815|name=Anna Pilipenko}}: Anna PilipenkoUEFA competition record ... Sorry! That page doesn't exist... Please head back to the homepage.

The link is now

I'm not sure how to fix the template to make it use the new link. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: That link is not an adequate replacement. It seems to be only for Women's Euro 2022, which means it won't work for men or for women with a record in previous competitions. For instance, the archived version for Sara Däbritz has her record in the World Cup, Euros and Champions League, while her entry at the new link is empty of games. The good news is that the ID is unchanged, so finding the appropriate link might still be possible. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Five tildesEdit

What to do about persistent pest editors (such as @Beeney xx:) who refuse to use five tildes when updating infoboxes, causing confusion about stats? GiantSnowman 21:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

😛 Beeney xx (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusion. hahahahahaha. Soooooooo confusion because I haven't added 17:39 or 23:09 for example! If that annoys you can't imagine how you'd react to a fork scrapping a clean swept plate! Beeney xx (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is the date always updated? If yes, i don't think it is a problem not using the five tildes, atleast for me. Kante4 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Removing the time and simply updating the date, which is the case being highlighted here, is ambiguous. An editor could have updated the stats prior to the player's next appearance on the same day. Other editors may assume that the stats have already been updated, meaning they may become inaccurate thereafter, as not everyone consults with sources before updating stats and relies on the previous editor updating the stats correctly. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If the timestamp is from the day the last match was played we need the time for the timestamp to be unambiguous. So for example, if Jamie Vardy's caps were to be updated today for the match he played today, we'd need the time, too. If someone updates the caps tomorrow and uses tomorrow's date, we don't need the time. (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the assumption is that if there is only a date and the player's team had a match on that date, then the update is following the match. The timestamp might make it technically not ambiguous, but in that case requires the user to either know what time the game was at (and then add 90 minutes + break time to get the end time of the game), which requires a search anyway and doesn't really help with quick info. --SuperJew (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
So many pages I update only have the date without time. In fact, I regularly just add the date without a time. I've always assumed the date to be up to and including that date. In fact, I didn't even know five tildes auto entered the date and time. Personally, I find the time makes it look messy, I actually prefer only seeing the date, even though I know technically including the time is more accurate. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated above, the presence of the time makes it unambiguous. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular example here? The most recent edit I saw by this user was updating Jürgen Locadia, which was inappropriate for a different reason (changing the club-update to today's date (16 January 2021) rather than the last played date (9 November 2020)). Is including the time more common on actively viewed players? I mainly edit American leagues so I don't see this problem very often. Jay eyem (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on Robert Sánchez, which I have been correcting and warning them about for a long time. GiantSnowman 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that edit history, I don't see anything wrong with Beeney's edit. The vast majority of the player pages I edit only have dates and no times. I always assume the date to be up to and including games played on that date. It's not like he was updating appearances and leaving an old date - that would be incorrect. I see nothing wrong with just leaving the date. Sometimes I will backdate to the date of their last appearance, as Jay eyem said, with the edit happening days later. I obviously wouldn't put a time if I did that, since I'm not going to look up the exact time a match ended. Re: the Jurgen Locadia edit, I just fixed it. It's understandable why he changed it to 18(@) from 17(1), since that's what soccerway says, since soccerway includes the non-league cup match 1(1) in the league section. I fixed the table in the article RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The template documentation at Template:Infobox football biography for club_update states (my emphasis) A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use five tildes (~~~~~) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or {{subst:mdytime}} for mdy format. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired. and therefore I think we should make every effort to educate users to do this. Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Bingo. Also, this response from the editor in question shows they know about but are deliberately choosing to ignore the rules. Pure troll behaviour. GiantSnowman 10:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I'm reading in the comment GiantSnowman. The editor clearly does not understand the goal that is clearly described in the template's documentation. At least they editor is not updating the timestamp even when the player was on the roster but did not participate in the given match! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Footballer," "association football player," or "soccer player"?Edit

I wanted to reach out to the larger community with a question I've encountered several times. The page in question at the moment is that of Yunus Musah, an American-born player who has played for England at youth level but most recently played twice for the United States senior national team, but both matches were friendlies. Here's the confusion: He was born in New York, grew up in Italy, and moved to England when he was nine. Before playing for the United States, his footballing nationality was clearly English, even though he was born in the United States. But right now, he is an active player on the United States senior team, but he is not cap-tied. Through a series of edits, a consensus has been established that until he is cap-tied, a nationality would not be listed in the lede. But there is no consensus on which word to use to refer to the sport he plays. Some have edited the page to read " a professional footballer," while others have edited it to read " a professional association football player" and " a professional soccer player." The date format of the article is MDY, for what that's worth. I am simply seeking clarity on consensus from other players' pages, as I have seen an assortment of practices. I admit, though, that the majority of players who have most recently played for the United States but have otherwise ambiguous nationality are listed as "soccer players"—examples are, among others, Cameron Carter-Vickers, Julian Green, Danny Williams (soccer, born 1989), and Gedion Zelalem—which suggests to me that Musah, having been born in the United States and most recently represented the United States, even if not cap-tied, should be referred to using American English and thus as a "soccer player." I am open to any suggestions, however, as I haven't been able to find any kind of consensus on this. I appreciate your collective help. Anwegmann (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the example of Cameron Carter-Vickers, which has been discussed here many times (please search the Archives), and use 'soccer' player. GiantSnowman 08:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, @GiantSnowman:. Anwegmann (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
On a similar note, what about Soony Saad? Born in the US to Lebanese parents, represented the US at youth level, then Lebanon at senior. I have put "association football player" as I feel it's a good compromise (while using MDY and US English obviously as his Lebanese nationality doesn't affect the type of English being used); what would be the best solution? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[imported by Nehme1499 from (dif)] I would say "footballer" works best here, as he represents a nation in which the game is called "football" rather than the other way around—for example, if he was Lebanese-born but represented the United States, "soccer" would be most appropriate. [...] "association football," from what I've seen, is best avoided. Anwegmann (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree for Saad describe him as a 'footballer' - it's what I've done for a long time in similar situations e.g. US-born Puerto Rico internationals. GiantSnowman 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wanderers 3rd kitEdit

Could someone please make the Western Sydney Wanderers 3rd kit to add to the season and club pages? WDM10 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:GL/I. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada men's national football teamEdit

We should rename this article: Canada men's national football team. The title is ambiguous because the mentioned article is about American football.
(By the way, aren't you considering to add the word "men's" into association football article names, too?)
Maiō T. (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is correct as is. In Canada, the sport goes by soccer. In Canada, the word "football" is primarily associated with gridiron football, which includes both Canadian football and American football. Also, "men's" is in the title, because in Canada the men's and women's national teams have equal prominence in Canada, compared to around the world, where the male team would have prominence in discussion. The same applies to the United States men's national soccer team. The hatnote is correct in my view. A case could be made that your proposed title could be a disambiguation page (like the US equivalent), since the 'national football team' isn't really a regular team, but the page should most definitely be officially named as 'soccer' not football. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree and have moved that article to Canada men's national American football team. My rationale is in the article's edit history. – PeeJay 20:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay. GiantSnowman 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
My move was immediately reverted by User:Cuchullain. According to assertions in the RM on the article talk page, this Canadian team is unusual as they compete in competitions for both American and Canadian football. I therefore suggest it should be moved to Canada men's national gridiron football team. It would still be an outlier in the categories for men's national American football teams, but at least it would more accurately describe the type(s) of football played by that team. – PeeJay 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
They play the only types of football which are called football in Canada. The title is correct. And anyway this is the wrong football WikiProject to be discussing it on. Smartyllama (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The page should absolutely NOT be moved from its current titlesoccer team to football team. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be known by their WP:COMMONNAME. I am Canadian and the national team is referred to as the national soccer team 100% of the time. I have heard it referred to as the football team ZERO TIMES, it's always 100% referred to as soccer. As a fan of our sport, I do use both the words 'football' and 'soccer', but will use them specifically based on the context. In the context of the national team of Canada, I always use 'soccer' because that's what it is called and known by. The Canadian national team is run by the Canadian Soccer Association. No offense, but if you are not Canadian, you will be biased by how it is termed in your native country. This discussion shows that because of the wanting to change the other page to "American football". Canadian football and American football are two different sports, just like how rugby union and rugby league are different and fans of those sports do not like when others mix them up or just say they are basically the same. Just because the sport is known as 'football' in Europe does not mean the Canadian team will be called 'football team', it should 100% remain as 'soccer team' according to WP:ENGVAR. Wanting to change it is just an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore, trying to move the other page to 'gridiron' is not being more correct. Again, per WP:COMMONNAME, it is rarely called 'gridiron football' in Canada, they'll refer to the one being playes. Again to refer to the rugby league and rugby union example, saying their both just 'rugby' would not be accepted by those in the know. Sorry, if my tone comes across in poor taste, but being Canadian, I feel it is important to accurately explain what the case is and why the current names are correct. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about moving Canada men's national soccer team to another title, but I don't think you're right about Canada men's national football team being the best title for that subject. They play multiple codes of football, that's true, but avoiding the term "gridiron" just because no one actually calls either sport "gridiron football" in Canada is a little spurious to me. Just calling the article Canada men's national football team isn't specific enough to help identify the actual sport(s) played by that team. User:Smartyllama is right that this may not be the right location for this discussion, but the current title is wrong nonetheless. – PeeJay 11:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. The discussion continues here. Maiō T. (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Racism Section on Football WikiEdit

Hello everyone. I want to make clear that racism is a disgrace, but I want a descent discussion about it if it needs a section on football pages. I live in the Netherlands and there aren't pages there where the post this on Wiki pages from clubs. Because it is about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. At the English page of FC Den Bosch there is a big part about a racism part. In a TALK 'discussion' and in the part you can fill in when you make changes to a page the only thing ONE person says is stuff like: The Dutch and English Wiki are different etc. There is no discussion possible. So that is the reason I want to hear/read it from other people on Wiki, what their opinion is about this. A descent discussion and not one person who decides everything. Greetings from the Netherlands :) DutchPJ (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC+2)

We have a dedicated article, Racism in association football, where is should also be mentioned. GiantSnowman 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, @DutchPJ:, you take issue with the mention of the racist behaviour of Den Bosch fans at the FC Den Bosch article. And you're saying such incidents of racism are not mentioned at club pages on the Dutch Wikipedia and that this is because Wiki pages should be about de club. What they win, what they loose, the players etc. Well, I've got to say if it's true Dutch articles do not cover racist incidents from fans, I'm very surprised. Fans are a major aspect of clubs and fan behaviour very much affects how clubs are perceived so their behaviour is absolutely relevant to the article – provided it is covered by reliable sources per WP:DUE.
Pinging @Microwave Anarchist: as they reverted DutchPJ at the FC Den Bosch article. (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say it's perfectly appropriate to mention racist incidents on club pages if they were genuinely significant/notable (as the Den Bosch one seems to have been), but they should receive an appropriate amount of weight. The section in the Den Bosch article seems a bit large considering the overall length of the history section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I reinstated the section as it received significant coverage though I do agree with ChrisTheDude that WP:WEIGHT should be considered. Perhaps if anyone is up for a challenge, the history section could be expanded and the racism incident trimmed a little. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I had a look and read through the history part of the article. I don't think it needs thinning down, all I see is that there is a lot of room for improvement in the history section. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: I agree. It's probably because I wrote it myself in about 30 minutes. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Robbie KeaneEdit

Any admin want to sort out the edit-war here?? Govvy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both the users edit warring are new users (< 10 contributions), so page protection should work. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a COI with the editor removing the content as he refers to Keane as a 'client'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Both seem in the wrong. The information being added is being done in a non-encyclopaedic manner and the phrasing isn't supported by the sources, e.g. "refused to vacate", "while doing zero work", "the usually publicity brash", "renewed outrage among loyal" fans, etc. Removing information from an article about a client is also a violation of the rules, but the onus is on the person adding the information. Something neutral along the line that Keane has remained on the payroll after being relieved of the assistant manager role might be appropriate, but this is standard when people have contracts and hardly deserving the inflammatory description. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both editors warned for 3RR. If they pop up again let me know. I'll also semi-protect the article - no commentary on what the article should look like. GiantSnowman 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

James Smith, Fulham F.C.Edit

Hi. The page List of Fulham F.C. players lists a James Smith who played for that team from 1909-1915. Unfortunately it links to the disambiguation page James Smith and I can not figure out if this person has a Wikipedia page and if yes, which one it is. Can someone help me identify this player? Lennart97 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'James Smith' listed at Category:Fulham F.C. players who matches, so I don't think so. GiantSnowman 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed - the player in question does not have an article at present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot! Lennart97 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of Fulham's James Smiths - there is James Smith (Scottish footballer) and Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896), both of whose infoboxes say he scored 1 goal in 5 League games in 1922. Are we sure that a) they are definitely different players and if so that b) they definitely both played for Fulham and haven't been confused somewhere? Helluva coincidence if players with the same name had the same apps at the same time... GiantSnowman 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
My edition of Joyce lists a player whose career matches James Smith (Scottish footballer) (also played for Rutherglen, Third Lanark, Plymouth, etc). He does not list any other player called James/Jimmy Smith as having played for Fulham in the 1920s and the one he does list is not said to have played for Rangers or Aberdeen. Neither of the sources in the Jimmy Smith (footballer, born 1896) article back up the claim that he played for Fulham. Pinging @Crowsus:, who created that article, to see if any light can be shed on where the Fulham info came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, I have removed the references to Fulham from the 1896 born player on that basis. GiantSnowman 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, my source for Fulham was the AFC Heritage ref, which has since removed all their player history trajectories for "temporary data cleanse" - annoyingly they have done this for every player rather than reviewing it on an individual basis. Luckily in this instance there is a pre-cleanse version here that states he was at Fulham in December 1922. John Litster's 'Pre War Scottish Players' files back this up and give a specific loan date of 26/12/22. However he is known to have played for Aberdeen on 22nd and 30th so if correct must literally have been for a day. I suppose there's a possibility he was down in London at Christmas and all parties agreed he could play for Fulham on a guest basis. Maybe there's something to support that and it could be looked into. But it might just all be a mistake based on the very common name and similar position. Litster's files also state that the Third Lanark/Clyde James Smith played for Port Vale then Fulham that season (no further details, it rarely does for English teams) and it does seem more logical that he's the player with the 5/1 stats. Apologies for adding that to the wrong article but I'm sure you can understand why I did so based on the info available (though I should have looked more closely at the Aberdeen appearances for the time since it doesn't add up). PS just to confirm, those files don't shed any light on the original 1909-1915 subject of the query. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Football".