Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Add topic
Active discussions
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 the project's quality scale.
 

FIFA Men's World RankingsEdit

Hi. Why was this article moved to this name? FIFA World Rankings should be the correct name.--Island92 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. FIFA's own website distinguishes between "Men's Ranking" and "Women's Ranking. Historically it probably is the case that "FIFA World Rankings" referred to the men's game, but I'm not sure that distinction remains relevant (Unlike, for example, if someone were to move FIFA World Cup to FIFA Men's World Cup). If anything I think FIFA World Rankings should be turned into a disambiguation page. Jay eyem (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree as well, FIFA clearly has them titled as Men's and Women's rankings, and it is becoming more common to distinguish the two, same as some National Football team articles now have men in the title for the National Football team to distinguish it from the women's team.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, they might name them that, but is it the WP:COMMONNAME? It's a little bit of WP:RECENCYBIAS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group E for example you read FIFA Ranking (generic name). That's why I think the Page should be re-moved to the previous name. Island92 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition to that, the info box for a National Football Teams shows FIFA Ranking, as England national football team for example.--Island92 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Every women's national team page also says simply "FIFA Ranking" not "FIFA Women's Ranking", for example England women's national football team. It also does the same on the world cup pages (just says FIFA Ranking (example: 2019_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Qualified_teams. So that is irrelevant. If I were to talk about about a women's team's ranking, I would naturally say they are number X in the World Rankings. I wouldn't randomly include the word women's since it would be obvious. For both genders, the COMMONNAME is simply "FIFA World Rankings", but it needs to be disambiguated somehow, so going with the name FIFA uses makes sense instead of going with FIFA World Rankings (men) and FIFA World Rankings (women). RedPatch (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
If you check out this page and this page, you can see a logo in the top-right corner saying "Coca-Cola Men's World Ranking" and "Coca-Cola Women's World Ranking". I think that's enough evidence to suggest the new titles are appropriate. – PeeJay 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Should the articles be moved to FIFA Men's World Ranking and FIFA Women's World Ranking (singular)? Nehme1499 16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I would have no problem with that. – PeeJay 16:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so - we would be listing all of them, so you might look up the ranking of a team, the teams all make up the rankings. We can't just change good English to fit with FIFA. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
On that, why is this not FIFA men's world rankings? It's hardly a proper noun, even if they think it is. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Because it's an official branding, similarly to why we don't have the FIFA world cup or UEFA champions league. Nehme1499 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

- but those things are proper nouns. They are competitions. It seems to be a bit all over the place, with things like snooker world rankings, but also Official World Golf Ranking, which just seems wrong to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Álvaro VázquezEdit

This article has caused some confusion: on the article it says he still plays for Kerala Blasters however the club article does not include him. I then checked the FC Goa page and he's currently on there but the source given does not include him on the squad page. It does appear on Google News that he has agreed terms (https://www.90min.com/posts/isl-alvaro-vazquez-reportedly-agrees-terms-to-move-to-fc-goa-from-kerala-blasters) which states that the Kerala Blasters contract ends on 31 May 2022. That makes sense as to why the FC Goa website does not include him yet. So I have changed the article to reflect that hopefully to avoid more confusion on that article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If he's agreed terms with Goa, shouldn't there be some mention of that in his article? – PeeJay 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree re your response so I have included that in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Results and Fixtures - Scotland and Peru national football teamsEdit

Hello everyone. Following the model at Scotland national football team and suggestions by GA/FA reviewers, the Peru national football team article does not include a "results and fixtures" list. Off the top of my head, I recall some reasons for this being that it made the article bulky, focused excessively on recent and future events, relied on dubious sources, and often was manipulated by users to display favorable results (altering date ranges to filter bad results). Since at the time of the FA reviews Peru was on a losing streak, see the first decade at Peru national football team results (2000–2019), nobody had any issues with altogether removing the results (matching with the design of the Scotland article). However, since Peru is now doing "better" a user wants to add the results list on the page ([1]). I am tired of the discussion, especially as the user is now pushing buttons ("I understand that you've been editing this page for fifteen years therefore have a particular interest in it" [2]). My understanding is that their main argument is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams should be enforced on all articles as the standard. I always understood that page as just a proposal to help articles develop. The Scotland and Peru articles have kept a stable model for over a decade. I wanted to bring this up for discussion here to get more input from other FOOTY members. Thanks.--MarshalN20 🕊 15:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add that Peru has also 3 additional records pages: Peru national football team records and statistics, Peru national football team results (2000–2019), and Peru national football team results (2020–present). So the results and fixtures do appear on the site, just requiring one or two more clicks. Just searching on Google also brings up the results quickly.--MarshalN20 🕊 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, Scotland being the joint-oldest national football team in the world, they have a long fixtures record starting with Scotland national football team results (1872–1914).--MarshalN20 🕊 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't add the recent results (matches played in the last 12 months) to national team articles. If WP:RECENTISM is a concern, then the current squad and recent call-ups section should also be removed. Nehme1499 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for bringing this discussion here. As I mentioned in our previous chat, Fixtures and Results never came up in either of their FA reviews, the section was removed from the Peruvian page in 2009 but it was in table format back then rather than its current template. I have absolutely no interest in how the Peruvian team is doing, only that the national team articles are somewhat consistent, as demonstrated by my editing history. I believe that Fixtures and Results is a good section and should be included on the main page with the parameters that are set out on the template. The rest of my argument is available here! Felixsv7 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If GA/FA reviewers feel a section including recent results should not be included then maybe we should be rethinking the template. At the end of the day, we want as many of these articles to be featured articles as possible and if this is only going to prove a stumbling block it might be better not to be included. A good article will contain a history section which will outline recent results anyway even if it doesn't go in depth and readers can be pointed to results articles if they want more detail. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: I had a look through the GA/FA reviews of both the Scottish and Peruvian national football team pages (the Peruvian page has four separate reviews) and neither mention the inclusion or exclusion of a Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, Belgium is a Featured Article and had a similar discussion a few years ago before deciding to reimplement the Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That is interesting. I had a quick look back at the edit history and at the time of those reviews neither article had a results/fixtures section so if the reviewers never even thought about why the section was missing, it can't be that important. It also implies that it's not needed as, if it was, the reviewers would have brought it up in their suggestions for improvement. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The Peruvian page used to have a version of Results and Fixtures (back in 2009) and Scotland had an even more strange one (in 2007) but I wouldn't recommend a reversion to either format. I'd look at the Belgium page to suggest desire for the section but, in the end, if we feel that the template isn't reflective of what the ideal national team page looks like, let's amend it (though I am personally a fan!) Felixsv7 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I know some articles do include the last 2/3 years of results (though isn't that a WP:RECENTISM issue?), but I think it is much tidier if you include the match results in separate articles for each decade unless a team didn't play much then you could make it 20-30 years. That's my 2p and it avoids cluttering the article which is already full of tables and templates for squads and tournament results. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any national team page features results from over a year ago in their Results and Fixtures section. If they do they certainly shouldn't! Felixsv7 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with including all results from the current qualifying cycle, even if some may have happened more than 12 months ago. – PeeJay 12:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@The C of E: See my comment above re RECENTISM. Nehme1499 10:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, how exactly is the "as well as any future matches that have been scheduled" not a problem with future predictions? I should also add that, while the past matches have "reports" that can at least serve for some verification (albeit that is also problematic for FA standards), the "future matches" do not have any reliable sources to support them. There's even an ongoing situation between Chile and Ecuador that may affect Peru's qualification ([3]), so the "future match" being listed in the fixtures is clearly unreliable information. IMO, I reiterate that Wikipedia is not Google or a sports journal, so we should not display these lists in the national team encyclopedic articles...and we specially should not speculate about the future.--MarshalN20 🕊 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The future matches shouldn't be unverifiable. They should either be the result of a draw by FIFA or their confederation, or they will have been announced by their football association (a friendly). Felixsv7 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't prevent us from talking about future events, provided that they are properly verifiable. – PeeJay 16:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:Crystal says to avoid speculation, but says that verifiable future events can be mentioned if they are notable enough that they would be mentioned if they happened in the past. This seems to cover confirmed future fixtures in my view. Spike 'em (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep, the fixtures are scheduled, and it would actually be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL not to list them, as it would imply an assumption that those games wouldn't be played. – PeeJay 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Let's take a peek at the evidence available. So, after I made this comment, Felix quickly edited the Peru article to add sources for the upcoming matches ([4]). Fantastic. But, let's take a look at other articles and see what's up. Mexico national football team has 11 unreferenced future matches ([5]), Ecuador national football team has 9 unreferenced future matches ([6]), Malaysia national football team has 5 unreferenced future matches ([7]). And the list goes on. What does this indicate? I see placing undue burden or expectations on editors to keep up the verifiability of future matches, hindering the stability and source quality of the articles. All for what exactly? How is adding these lists of any encyclopedic value? How are we not turning these articles now into databases?--MarshalN20 🕊 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the articles contain much more than just fixture lists, or at least they should. If the fixture lists were the only content in those pages, I would agree that it is ridiculous to keep such an article, but many of them also have info on the teams' history, their kits, their home stadiums, etc. What exactly is the problem with adding fixtures as long as they're properly sourced? – PeeJay 08:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You're right, I did quickly edit it - because the information was easy to come by. And adding the fixtures and results for a football team onto said football team's page cannot reasonably be considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We don't have "recent results" sections in club articles, so why are they in national team articles? It's a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    Having the current roster and recent call-ups is also RECENTISM. Should that section also be deleted? Nehme1499 15:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    No. We also have current squads in the club articles. Why should the national team articles be inconsistent with club articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    They shouldn't, both the recent results and recent call-ups should be kept as neither violate RECENTISM. Nehme1499 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    We have different templates for the national teams and clubs - the former playing much less frequently - creating differences. Also, none of the bulleted descriptions of Recentism apply to the Results section. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    That is circular logic. The template is different, so the article should be different. I'm saying that the template is wrong. There is no difference between listing the last umpteen results for a national team and the last umpteen results for a club team. Nobody ever said when the article went through peer review, FAC or FAR that "this article is lacking the most recent results of the team". In fact, at peer review one of the suggestions was to remove the recent results section (point 11). WP:RECENTISM says "Long passages in an athlete's or an actor's biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy" - you propose to add over 12,000 bytes of data about recent events (over 1/10th of its total length), which skews it towards those recent events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    The current framework for recent results and fixtures didn't exist when the article went through review fifteen years ago, instead they suggested removing a table (with their final point).

The national team page is neither an athlete nor an actor so that wouldn't apply. The only mention of a situation like this on the Recentism page is in the Talk page discussing live scoring - which I'll concede is pretty damn recent. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we maybe just have Most Recent Match and Next Match which would limit the entries to 2? Crowsus (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No, no, no. That is even worse. I also want to address a point made above - oh, the templates are different because national teams are "playing much less frequently". The typical college football team in America only plays 12 to 15 games in a year (e.g. the national champion Georgia played 15, winning 14, in their 2021 season). The NFL regular season has 17 games in it. It's not unusual for national teams to play at least as many games as this in a year, especially on the women's side. The England men's team team played 19 games in 2021, for example. Yet if you look at any major American football team (college or NFL), you will not get a list of "recent results", e.g. 1, e.g. 2 (both good articles). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582's perspective makes a lot of sense to me. I also would like to further add that these "results and fixtures" are not and will never be highlighted in the introduction. What are we to write about it? "In the past twelve months, Scotland has won seven games, lost three, and tied four, with seven scheduled upcoming matches." And this has to be updated after every match or "confirmed" upcoming match? Not even in the history section do we write about every single match the team has played...because not all matches are relevant. Which leads me to the question no one has yet answered: Why are the past 12 months of matches relevant for the article? Moreover, what makes 12 months more relevant than 6 or 24 months? What makes months a more accurate marker than manager (as in, wouldn't it make more sense to list all matches under the current manager)? --MarshalN20 🕊 04:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be in the lead. Do we have to describe the 23 called-up players, or the recent call-ups? The latter is also subject to a 12-month timeframe. Nehme1499 09:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a recent call-ups list either. The "current squad" list is always cited. The "recent call-ups" is uncited, which runs contrary to FA standards. Regardless, that is not a justification to support 12 months of "recent results" or why months are even a justifiable marker. It's simply using the same circular logic that Jmorrison230582 highlighted above.--MarshalN20 🕊 14:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we need an RfC to determine whether or not to include results on national team pages then. I'd obviously support for the reasons listed but would be great to provide further clarity and conformity to the template! (I'd also be in favour of citing the recent call-ups section). A year is a justifiable marker - easily quantifiable. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

How different do article names need to be?Edit

So there are these two players: Mohamed Omar (soccer) and Mohamed Omar (footballer). Their pages obviously require further disambiguation as recent consensus has been that soccer/footballer are considered to be the same and they have the exact same spelling. However, I also noticed there are also Mohammad Omar (footballer) and Muhammad Omar (footballer), with different spelling variations of the first name. Are those considered different enough to be fine as are, or should the four all be jointly further disambiguated? All four are listed at the Mohamed Omar disambiguation page. (If they do need further disambiguation, I'll do it through a RM, rather than a bold move) RedPatch (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that they should be disambiguated further due to extremely similar spelling variants as they might be considered the same name, the same way as Jonathan, Johnathan, Jonathon etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Mohamed Omar (footballer) is spelt with two m's in the lede anyway! Probably just need to put what year they were born and then nationality in the disambiguation. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Technically, all their names are the same if written in Arabic. I would definitely further disambiguate by year. This is what I've done at Yusuf Muhammad (disambiguation), for example. Nehme1499 11:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
So as you guys mentioned Mohamed Omar (footballer) should probably be moved to Mohammed, as noted that the lede spells it with 2 Ms and his club team also spelled it with two Ms here. RedPatch (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I created a Requested Move discussion here. Presented two options: Nationality and birth year. RedPatch (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordi AmatEdit

I'm not sure how many users actually have this linked page on their watchlists: a large cluster of IP addresses have repetitively changed Amat's height by one centimetre from what the archive source says to 1.85m. This is a case of that editing behaviour being tedious at this point since that has been going on for many weeks now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan, I l've requested a protection at RPP. Dr Salvus 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help?Edit

Hi how are you guys? Please help me the name of Goalscorers, match officials, and match report of 2022 CAFA U-16 Championship. Thanks. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If that information is so hard to come by, perhaps this tournament isn’t sufficiently notable for an article… – PeeJay 11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not notable. PROD submitted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Career highlights?Edit

May I suggest that we add a "career highlights" section for very good or famous footballers? I have seen it on Jonny Wilkinson's wikipedia page and think it is a good idea. Please comment your opinion on this proposal. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a dreadful idea. Who's opinion is something a "highlight"? I have no idea why the rugby project haven't been on that. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, fails WP:NPOV. Nehme1499 15:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
We could make a decision on what is a highlight- eg debuts, hat tricks, trophies, and make a list on what we can include. Also, I've only seen it on one article so I'm not sure whether it's a regular thing. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This is quite a regular thing on WP:AFL. Usually highlights are end of season awards (ones which are notable enough to have a wikipage), leading goalkickers, captaincies, and premierships. Pretty much all the things we have navboxes for. --SuperJew (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of that is either statcruft, or suitable for an awards section. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the original question - on WP:AFL at least it is part of the infobox, not a separate section. I agree in prose it is pretty much the awards section if seaprate at all. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but if implemented like on the Wilkinson article that would be a terrible idea and would open the floodgates for all sorts of statcruft and POV pushing. The list on the Wilkinson article contains things like "Wales deny England a Grand Slam at Wembley" - how is that a highlight of Wilkinson's career? And other matches don't even attempt to present an explanation of why they would be considered highlights of his career. You suggest "debuts, hat tricks, trophies" as examples of what could be included in a footballer's list - well, his debut should be covered in the prose, trophies would already be covered in the honours section, and as for hat-tricks, in many cases a player will have scored quite a lot of these - Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 60, for example, and to list them all would be daft. Others may disagree but I'm afraid it's a massive no from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree, just no per reasons above. On top of that, the whole section is unsourced. Kante4 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
For example:
Anon Ymous
January 2018-Anon Ymous makes his first-team debut for example United, coming on as a 62nd minute substitute for Unkn Own.
June 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first goal.
September 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first hat trick.
December 2018-Anon Ymous scores a brace in the example derby, including a memorable bicycle kick in the 92nd minute.
February 2019-Anon Ymous makes his England debut.
May 2019-Anon Ymous wins the first trophy of his career, scoring the winning goal in the final of the FA cup.
June 2019-Anon Ymous wins his first individual accolade, winning the 2019 Primer Leek golden boot.
July 2019-Anon Ymous is called up for the 2019 FIFA world cup squad (pretend that that is a thing)
July 2019-Anon Ymous makes his first world cup appearance, scoring his first goal in a 6-1 thrashing of Panama.
July 2019-Anon Ymous is sent off in the quarter finals of the world cup, the first red card of his career.
July 2019-Anon Ymous wins the best young player award at the world cup.
December 2019-Anon Ymous becomes the youngest player to score 50 primer leek goals, aged only 21.
July 2020-Anon Ymous wins the PFA player's player of the year and the primer leek golden boot.
August 2020-Anon Ymous controversially signs for example United's local rivals, example city, for a british record £110 million.
The key word is "First".
Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
For most players this will almost mirror their career sections, which are usually just a list of statements saying On the nth of sometember he did a good thing. The prose career section should already be a summary of a career, with really momentous things appearing in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned, every one of those items should be written within the prose of a "career" section. Having it as a table or bullet point list would either duplicate the prose (pointless) or be yet another lazy example of substituting a table/list for properly written prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Reads like a blog and as said, everything is covered in the prose, so simply no. And five editors are against it, so let's stop it. Kante4 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the two previous commenters, that list is just a badly written career section. – Elisson • T • C • 09:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (x2) No from me too; at the F1 project 'career highlights' is often used when a driver has a short, not very successful F1 career, in order to include wins or podium finishes in other major categories (Le Mans or other sportscar racing for example). Can't see that this could be adapted to work here and it would lead to the sort of POV pushing seen in 'honours' from time to time... only likely more so. Eagleash (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry but this is a terrible idea. GiantSnowman 09:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the not in favour of this idea group. RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I too late to join the this is a really bad idea team? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically what this proposal is, is WP:PROSELINE for a unspecified group of events. I'm going to take a look at the rugby stuff as it's not really suitable there. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. If you think it’s a bad idea, you also might want to get it off Jonny Wilkinson#career highlights’s page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Has not much to do with this discussion but it's gone already. Kante4 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I think I'm going blind. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Marley AkéEdit

Juventus site consider him (with no point) a first-team player (for example you can buy his shirt while you can't buy Miretti's). Should the article have the number he uses with the first team? Dr Salvus 12:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No comment on that, but is it really necessary to include he caught and recovered from covid in his personal life section? Almost the entire world has has or will have it at some point. If he had missed a critical match or something with it in his career section, I'd say maybe, but to create a personal life section to just write he got covid once seems unnecessary. RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@RedPatch: Almost any other illness wouldn't be reported by name if at all. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I say we can start getting rid of COVID mentions for all players, unless it had a noteable impact. And yes, I reckon we can start listing Ake with the senior team number.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DJdjPollard15 and his many sockpuppetsEdit

Hi guys, just wanted to remind you all of this particular sockmaster. He's pretty tenacious when it comes to evading his original block, but fortunately for us, he's pretty easily identifiable. He seems to use the exact same set of edit summaries every single time ("Added some new information" or "Added a new image", the former being especially ironic when he's actually deleting content!), and his usernames follow a fairly common pattern. I raise this here because his targets are usually football-related, although he does stray into pop music and reality TV every once in a while. Per WP:BANREVERT, we should be reverting this person's contributions on sight, regardless of how constructive they seem. If their contributions are actually any good, feel free to re-add them, but they should definitely be reverted first. Also, if you see any new sockpuppets like this, please report them at WP:SPI, logging them under the username of the original sockmaster, DJdjPollard15. Cheers. – PeeJay 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reported the recent socks to the meta stewards for global locks, in line with the other sock accounts used by the master. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Iggy. I know you've been quite vigilant with this particular sockmaster. I just wanted to make sure others were aware so we don't end up with any of his edits slipping through the net. – PeeJay 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Position per roundEdit

Me again. May I suggest that every major league (or at least the top five in Europe) has a position per round table on their page? It is absolutely driving me nuts that the Premier League and Bundesliga pages do not. I am currently making a Premier League one in my sandbox, so if somebody could make a Bundesliga one? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talkcontribs) 16:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say the opposite- we shouldn't have them for any leagues, as it's completely arbitrary and made up. For most of the Premier League season, teams have played different numbers of matches e.g. at Christmas 2021, teams had played between 15 and 18 matches [8]. In those circumstances, how is a position by round even done? It seems like we'd have to make up a calculation for it (to work out how many points everyone had after they'd played exactly X games), which is original research, since this isn't published anywhere else. Unless a league has fixed match dates where everyone plays on the same dates, then a positions by round is completely useless OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I found that very annoying-some matchdays were different, matches had to be played at different times due to the covid in december, etc. Thanks for telling me that so I don't have to waste my time doing any more. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, such tables should be avoided. It's entirely possible that you could have a scenario where team X were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, team Y were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and team Z were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and how would that be represented? Better to just avoid altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There has never been consensus to add to PL articles: see the many individual seasonal articles. I would object to any addition of such a table. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of which, there is currently a table lurking on the recently played WSL season, i.e. here. The table immediately after that is worse; if you have a look at the columns with the W, D and L filling them up, you will see that the wins and losses are imbalanced: column 13 for example shows only two wins but 7 losses, which is more than 50% of the number of teams who participated.
I'm not a huge fan of positions by round tables in this format and as what Joseph2302 says, that would not be useful. And just to add to the complexity of the positions by round, I found a website which shows what position teams were positioned round by round but, from e.g. the scorelines for round 18, the table after the set of results show the standings of everyone playing the first 18 rounds, barring Aston Villa and Burnley who are on 17 played. If Villa win, they would go up to 9th or 8th based on the results for this Thursday's and the rounds before that. It's pretty much unrealistic statistics there, we shouldn't really use these tables due to the amount of rearranged fixtures seasons have. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Today is really not going well for me on this talk page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not your fault. Maybe you were told "this is the way it's always been done" and just gone along with it in hopes of a quiet life, like I have, only to find someone's just shoehorning it in because they think it's a good idea. Seasider53 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sort of. I saw it on a few league pages and always thought it was a good idea (for example, to show Salernitana's great escape-they were bottom for about 2 thirds but are now outside of the relegation zone) with things like that shown very well in a graph. I just didn't realise how difficult the logistics were.
Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
It is an idea that has been proposed before but the current consensus is not to have these on major league pages. Although it is just as hard removing them in my experience! It might just be best to leave it as it is for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The only way it could work in a completely logical and OR-free way is if each data point (for want of a better term) was a fixed date rather than a "round", because the position of each team as at a given date is an incontrovertible fact. So you could do the positions as at the end of each Sunday between August and May, say. But then people would probably try and argue that games on Monday should be treated as if they occurred on the Sunday or something (life was so much easier when everyone just played at 3pm on Saturday!). So again, probably just easier to avoid altogether......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Stat-cruft and usually OR. I have no idea why they continue to be a thing. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Jake DanielsEdit

Might we be proactive and semi-protect his article before the comedians start rolling in? There's already been one. Seasider53 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to request it at WP:RPP, but it seems Joseph2302 has beaten me to it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Just as well, some random nonsense was added in just now before it was reverted. I don't see any connection between that and the footballer. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

1985 European Cup FinalEdit

If in the official programme (see photo in the article's lead) and UEFA press kits that match is cited as "Liverpool-Juventus", why in this website is written as "Juventus-Liverpool"?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Neither team was at home so the order of the teams is completely arbitrary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Uniform reasons with the other articles. And not, it's not arbitrary: UEFA chooses a "home" team for its finals for a reason..--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
UEFA says 'Juventus-Liverpool' actually. GiantSnowman 21:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
In the programme and statistics kit says "Liverpool-Juventus". Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well for whatever reason the current arrangement based on the UEFA website is Juventus-Liverpool and that is what we reflect. GiantSnowman 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The Swedish yearbook ((Strömbergs) Årets Fotboll 1986, documenting 1985) also says Juventus–Liverpool. – Elisson • T • C • 16:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. seasonEdit

Someone else want to look at the article, I really don't like the edits that Mwiqdoh is doing, I don't like the repeated linking to derby articles, (WP:OVERLINK)! I certainly don't like the (d) next to the score line which pops it out of alignment, I hate score-lines being linked up which messes with my voice reader for some bizarre reason. The scoreline won't be read out and it reads the link which is bizarre! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, no need for a (d) for derbies, and we don't need to link to every derby match in the fixtures/results lists. I have reverted and asked them to discuss here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree for consistency: we don't have any links to London derbies to 2021–22 Arsenal F.C. season for example. And I have never seen the (d) next to results before. Why would Mwiqdoh want to mess around with your current season's article? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I know! Why would he do such a thing? Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
jeez, Mwiqdoh Think you can stop edit-warring with everyone on the Spurs page, and to be honest, I don't really see a need to add rivalry links on the premier league round numbers. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, then we can leave it as is, no need to remove even more stuff like on the round numbers... Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
And I don't see the need to list the clubs players join weeks after they were released by the previous club, but hey-ho, the guidelines/policies of football-season article seem to have long since fallen by the wayside. Seasider53 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Results by matchday" section has a link for the derbies aswell which should not be there and i removed it now. Complete overkill/overlink and just made a mess of that section(s). Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: So how come we can include every away stadium link, but we can list 10 derbies that are legitimate rivalries? Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Season articles have a huge amount of links in them, really need to be clever what to link too, and not to overlink! Even players are overlink'ed on every season article. Rivalries can be talked about in prose and linked to in prose in the first instance, but no saturated all over the same article. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
For me the links can be removed in the section. And the link to a derby can be piped during the rounds how it is displayed. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

imbed code missing?Edit

Not sure how it works, but I went to add the table too 1998–99 Willem II season season article, however the whole page got added from 1998–99 Eredivisie, anyone able to fix that? I don't know how. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. I added a "section=" parameter to the Eredivisie league table. Nehme1499 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I had a look at what you did, but knowing me, I will forget how to do that. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Catalonia national football team and related pagesEdit

User:The Chumbo One just made a bunch of significant edits, undiscussed changes, and page moves related to the Catalonia national football team. The only edit I made was here reverting major undiscussed changes two weeks ago, but I am getting accused of making ideological changes. I am not sure what the consensus is for these pages but I thought it was important that the project was aware of these to make sure they were addressed properly. Jay eyem (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Football Squad of Catalonia" is a made up machine translation of the Spanish name, and is no way consistent with any other football/sports team naming system. Personally, I think Catalonia football team (without the national) is most sensible, but either way, move requests like these should be done via WP:RM, not unilaterally. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Palestine version includes "national" in the article title and so does the other related articles. The Chumbo One has moved these pages without a discussion so these pages should be returned whence they came to solve this problem. I can't think of any other teams which are in the same type as Palestine and Basque Country national football team as well as the team records they faced in the table lower down but some of those links have "national" included in those titles. So my guess is that national should be included for Catalonia as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
In fact, the user in question brought the same thing up here two weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 153#Catalonia is not a national team. Either way, seems like they're here to push a POV, and not here to collaborate. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Palestine is part of FIFA, Catalonia isn't; the two situations are not comparable. If anything, we should be looking at CONIFA members, such as Kurdistan and Padania. Dropping "national" seems like a good solution, or maybe replacing "national" with "representative". Nehme1499 15:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Equating Palestine with Catalonia is beyond ridiculous in so many levels.
If you cannot think of any other teams in the same situation as the "Selections" of Catalonia and the Basque Country... I suggest you take a look at the other 17 official regional teams representing other Spanish autonomous communities under the Royal Spanish Football Federation, which have identical status to those two.
And if you want to move away from the material reality and get into politics, then you'll know that the status of Palestine is a major ongoing issue at the United Nations with the majority of its integrants recognizing it as a country. In the other hand, absolutely no one questions the status of Catalonia, which is regarded just like every other European region a significant separatist movements present, such as Bavaria in Germany, Padania in Italy, Flanders in Belgium or Corsica in France. I see no one making absurd comparisons with Palestine with those. This matter is entirely ideological, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the region, which has absolutely no paralell with what's happening in Israel. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that we need to make a consensus on what word is used to describe non-official football teams, for example the different "national teams" for the Spanish states/counties/whatever they're called. I think that the "Catalonian autonomous community football team" sounds good. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately we need to determine what sources call the team, and that means using the common English name in sources. I have not done a search yet myself, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess they refer to it as a "national" team. But I don't know that for sure. Jay eyem (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a mistranslation, I've explained it at length in the my other comments. "Selecció" (selection) only refers to a "hand-picked" selection of players and is used at all levels, be it national ("Selección Francesa" for France's national team, or "Selección Española" for Spain), regional ("Selecció Catalana", as per their official website, for the team of the autonomous community of Catalonia) and even provincial ("Selección Sevillana", for the team of the province of Seville).
Translating the latter as "National team of Seville" with disregard of the context just because the direct translation is not common in English is just irrational. The same goes for "Selecció Catalana". The Chumbo One (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not a machine translation, I made it myself. If you want "made up" translations, look no further than "National Team". "Selecció" translates as "selection", as in, the selection of the players of the autonomous community (Spanish administrative subdivision) of Catalonia. At no point "national" is mentioned nor implied, as it is, to all effects, a regional team under the national Royal Spanish Football Federation of Spain.
So, since the direct translation ("selection") is by no means of common usage in English, then "football squad" is a far better option than "national team", as the "Selecció" is indeed a football squad, yet not a national team.
"Catalonia football team" makes it sound as if it were a club (Catalonia FC), and not a regional selection of players. As the native name is translates literally to "Selection of Catalonia" or "Catalan Selection", I belive "Football Squad of Catalonia" conveys the original meaning far better. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I've reverted them all, and will encourage the mover to use WP:RM. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Not undiscussed, I left a request 2 weeks ago here, absolutely no one answered, so, assuming a lack of readers or a lack of interest (its a regional footbal matter after all) I made the changes myself.
Wouldn't call "a bunch of significant changes" to what for the most part accounts to removing the word "national" where suitable. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not entirely accurate to say "absolutely no one answered", as you'll see from the archive page, but as I said at your talk, these discussions do tend to fizzle out.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a bold move. But now your moves have been reversed, you'll need to go through the requested move procedure. You should expect rather more response with a WP:RM than you got with your original opinion piece, because some sort of agreement needs to be reached for the move to take place, what new title to use, etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You moved several pages without a requested move on a politically contentious topic and then accused myself of ideologically driven editing. You also tried to change what was discussed in the past by editing the archive page, despite the fact that the very top of the page says NOT to do that. And what little feedback you did receive should not have led you to a consensus to make these changes. There's being bold, and then there are making personal attacks and moving pages without consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Someone posted a direct link to a comment and I replied, you can imagine I did not scroll up to check if a comment under two weeks old was archived. If you want to start a witch hunt over that, it's up to you.
And don't be fallacious, I didn't "try to change what was discussed in the past", I added a reply to someone who had left me a comment.
And trying to pass me mentioning "ideological reasons" as a "personal attack" is a rather good example of what you are trying to do here. The Chumbo One (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Calling out a personal attack is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of ideological editing absolutely is under WP:WIAPA bullet point 3. And judging based on your edit history, I am guessing you are relatively new to editing, especially something contentious like this. Which is the only explanation I can see for why you would edit an archive that explicitly says not to edit it. It's best to not accuse someone of having a political agenda without evidence, so maybe you should tone down your language on this discussion going forward. Jay eyem (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor directly translating a Spanish title sounds like WP:OR to me, and we should be using a name commonly used in English language sources.Spike 'em (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
That is literally the problem that the previous title had... not only a lack of research... but also a terrible literal translation with total disregard of the context.
If you want sources, here you have the official website of the Catalan Federation, you´ll see that they always use the term "Selecció Catalana Absoluta masculina", not a trace of "national", "Selecció" only refers to a hand-picked selection of players, there are no national connotations with the term. As a matter of fact, there are even provincial "Selections", such as the "Selección Granadina", the team of the province of Granada, which I am sure absolutely no one would translate as "national" just because that's what the first out of context result in the dictionary says. The Chumbo One (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the link of the Catalan Federation: https://www.fcf.cat/seleccio-absoluta The Chumbo One (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I asked for some English language sources, as that is what drives article titles on en.wiki, not translations of Spanish sources.Spike 'em (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I repeat, using English sources as a source is pointless if those sources are mistranslated. The same word (selección/selecció) is used for national, regional and provincial levels and I am sure you would find it as irrational as me if someone translated "Selección Sevillana de Fútbol" as "National Team of Seville" just because it's the most commonly used translation in English. The Chumbo One (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:AT makes it clear: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Your view on the translation of the official name in Spanish is irrelevant.Spike 'em (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Aha, I've specifically asked three Spanish-American linguists (including a very pro-Catalan one) and am a native myself, but lets better base it on whatever a random sports reporter with no clue of the language, the history or international politics writes in your average sensationalist sports journal. "Reliable". And of course for better contrast we can expect to find a thousand English sources mentioning the provincial under 16 team of the province of Seville.
It's pretty much like asking me to read the Wikipedia article to settle an error with the Wikipedia article... The Chumbo One (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
If you have issues for how Wikipedia titles articles, feel free to start a WP:RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and keep us updated. Jay eyem (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I will also replicate here a comment that was deleted from another Talk on the grounds that is an "old archived discussion" (not even two weeks old...):
The correct translation for "Selección Española" is NOT "Spain National Team", it just translates to "selection [of football players] of Spain". People often mistranslate "Selección" as "national team" because the literal translation (selection) is not used in English and they just pick the first entry they find in the dictionary with complete disregard to the context, but there is absolutely no "national" connotation in the word "selecció" (in Catalan) or "selección" (in Spanish).
Every other regional team uses the same name ("Selección Andaluza", "Selección de Castilla la Mancha"...) and it is used even for provincial teams, such as "Selección Granadina de Fútbol", the team of the province of Granada, and I'm sure you will all agree that translating these as a "national team" for the lack of a better dictionary entry would be beyond absurd.
The fact that the Squad of Catalonia plays matches against national teams means absolutely nothing. Other regional squads do as well. For instance, the squad of Andalusia has matches against Morocco, Estonia, Chile and even China. They are just meaningless friendlies.
You cannot compare the intranational regional status of the UK with that of Spain, they are completely different. The status of Gibraltar or Scotland is by no means the same as that of Catalonia or any other Spanish autonomous community.
And no, the Spanish Constitution does NOT acknowledge Catalonia as a nation, it merely talks about "nationalities" (historical nationalities), a term much debated, as a completely ambiguous and undefined recognition of the different cultural/linguistic/historical identities within Spain, which also encompasses several other cultural regions besides than Catalonia and the Basque Country. It is by no means akin to the "national" status of, say, Scotland. And most importantly, it has an ethnical meaning that has nothing to do with the Regional Football Team of Catalonia, which is not the team of those who are "ethnically Catalan", so to speak, but of those who are from the autonomous community (administrative subdivision) of Catalonia, independently of their ethnical/cultural background. It is so relaxed and trivial that even players who are not Catalan in any way like Iniesta or Reina have played in it. Yes, that same Iniesta from La Mancha who gave Spain a World Cup. The Chumbo One (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Make sure to mention all this at the RM you will need to raise to have any of these changes go ahead. Crowsus (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Formal Move Request issued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catalonia_national_football_team The Chumbo One (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Mark_Bradley_(footballer,_born_1988)Edit

Took me a while, but I have found the conversation which I remember being discussed on this page.

I can't seem to think why we have an image like that on the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) infobox, surely it should be a photo of him actually in a football kit or other football related job. I doubt this infobox image here is appropriate enough to be honest.

FYI: an article on my watchlist has had the picture changed from a football related one to one which is not. Given one of the responses from the archived conversation, I won't name that article and therefore left that alone for now so the revert is not in my contributions. In most cases, lead photos are of people in football kits or acting as a manager, not on their holidays or other out of football activities. These type of photos I think should reach a consensus on if they to be kept or not.

Option 1 - Keep the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) and similar photos in there.

Option 2 - remove due to that being out of scope for not using football kit/manager outfits.

Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would only include a photo of someone if it shows them doing the activity they're notable for, e.g. playing football? As long as there's a clear view of the subject's appearance, and there's nothing particularly inappropriate in the picture, then it should be fine. I actually cropped the current version of the image you refer to from the original, in which Bradley can be seen standing topless on a boat holding a fish, which, to me, would not be suitable for inclusion. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree, I can't see an issue with photos which don't show the subject playing or managing. Henrik Larsson's infobox image shows him as neither player nor manager, but attending some sort of function in black tie. It's a nice clear photo, though, so I see no reason to suggest its removal. In the case of Bradley we seem to have no other image, so surely a photo which conveys some visual info about him (he's white, he has dark hair) is better than no image at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Good point, I am now aware we have the full version visible from the link Mattythewhite provided. Comparing the photo with the ones found on Google Search does appear to be of the same person. That does seem fair as to why the photo used is in use at this moment re "visual info" even with Bradley wearing sunglasses. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that, despite not showing him in football attire, Bradley's photo is more useful to the reader than, say, Steve Arnold's, even though the latter does show him in a football setting...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
If it weren't for the sunglasses I'd say it is a perfect infobox photo. It shows the face of the subject clearly in a good quality image.--EchetusXe 11:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:1998–99 in Dutch footballEdit

I created a quick template for that season, might need to be fixed up better. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already an existing article so I don't think we need a new one, but it is a complete and utter car crash. I'm happy to help with it.
Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Car crash?? Govvy (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe thats a bit too much, but it does need a bit of improvement (sorry). As I said, I'm happy to help.
Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said it was only done in a short period in order to add to 1998–99 Willem II season (and a few other season pages), which was proposed for deletion. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I meant that the existing article is a bit of a mess. Sorry for any misunderstanding it may have caused.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Need inputEdit

Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer) - it appears this BLP was previously deleted. I'm not versed enough in Scottish football to fully understand if this athlete passes WP:GNG, but in 2021 he played in one FAC. Please ping me when you respond. Thank you in advance ~ Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: - he has never played higher than the third tier of Scottish football, which is not fully professional. In the absence of sufficient source coverage to pass WP:GNG, he isn't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. Your input is much appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: for info, with regard to this edit, playing in the FA Cup does not by itself confer notability on a player. Clubs right down to semi-pro and amateur level take part in that competition as well as the professionals -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, Chris - again, much appreciated. This topic is a bit out of my league.   But I'm learning! Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Created AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer). RedPatch (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the following articles were all created by the same user in the same week. Anyone know about them? Milan Thomas (footballer, born 1986), Devon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991), Ewan Moyes (footballer, born 1990), Sheldon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991), Bradley Donaldson (footballer, born 1994), Ryan Currie (footballer, born 1997), Cameron Fraser (footballer, born 1998), Matthew Gould (footballer, born 1994), Connor Quinn (footballer, born 1998), Moses Duckrell, Lewis Turner (footballer), George Hunter (footballer, born 1996). All of them have minimal prose and citations, which in light of the recent RfC basically states it's inadequate for publication as is as any player must clearly show GNG. RedPatch (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
They all look like non-notable players who happen to have played in the lower Scottish leagues. There might be an argument for Devon Jacobs meeting GNG, I don't know what sources will exist though. I think Milan Thomas would've passed the old NFOOTY but with just one appearance I doubt he'd pass GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The common denominator is that they were all on the books of Livingston, so clearly created by someone who is a very keen Livi fan. There's little claim to notability, though - Moses Duckrell, for one, seems to have played literally 0 professional matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
As Stevie fae Scotland said, I think that Devon Jacobs may be notable enough. After all, that is a pretty crazy record if we can prove it is right. However, I've just realised that, looking at the clubs list, he broke this record while he was a free agent. A little bit suspect....[User:Crystalpalace6810|Crystalpalace6810]] (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment it was nominated for a speedy deletion today, and I declined the speedy because a good amount of time has passed since the original AFD. It certainly would be eligible for AFD. When I removed the speedy tag, I hope I did not imply that it shouldn't be deleted at all--only that it should go through discussion again at this point and should not be deleted exclusively on the view of ... well.. just me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Paulmcdonald,   Just curious...when experienced NPP reviewers tag A7 on an article, we have already done the research - as you can see in this discussion above. It does qualify as A7, but taking it to AfD just adds more work to our already overworked schedules, and NPP has a growing backlog so how do we fix this to benefit both admins and NPP reviewers to make it so we're working together without piling on more work for both of us? I've had 2 or 3 A7s rejected that were clearly A7s. My workload doubles when I have to add another AfD to my watchlist. Why even have A7 or NPP if we're not going to take advantage and trust the process? Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding: here is another James Holden (footballer), and no telling how many more. And take a look at the redirects by one new editor. 16:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Hi there! Someone disagreed with you on that issue, so it goes to AFD. There is no WP:SENIORITY. I'm unsure how to tell the difference between an "experienced" and "unexperienced" NPP reviewer based on their tag, nor am I necessarily convinced that an experienced review is making a better decision than an inexperienced one. But if there is a way to tell, what would be the divisional line or measure that should be used?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Hi, Paul - you made some good points, and I certainly understand your position (re:SENIORITY, and experience vs inexperience), so I'll take a slightly different approach for the sake of perspective, and simply apply the criteria for A7 instead. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible,... What made you conclude that there was a credible claim of significance/importance? The first order of business at NPP is to save articles that are worthy of saving. We are second in line relative to article creation and the keep/delete process, unless an article falls through the cracks and ends up in mainspace, probably by autopatrolled users. Our job at NPP is to look for ways to fix articles which includes trying to find and add citations, and perform various other tasks before we even consider deletion, or we risk losing some of our user rights. When reviewing articles, NPP reviewers have the aid of the curation tool; a tool that reviewers helped develop for WMF to implement. The tool helps us zero in on potential issues, like copyvio, blocked user creation, article history, etc. Even with all the tools at my disposal, I still could not find anything that would save this article, but I also recognized my own limitations which is why I came to this project TP before taking any action. I also teach my NPP trainees to seek input from the respective projects prior to making a decision. This particular article happened to be one I chose for a NPP trainee to review. Were you unable to read my mind and figure all this out as Captain Kirk would have done?[FBDB] As evidenced above, the response by Chris provided the necessary clarity I was lacking, and A7 became the obvious choice, especially considering time constraints in the quagmire that is AfD, not to mention NPP's 18k article backlog. And Paul, if you saw a level of importance that I somehow overlooked, would you be so kind as to share it with me? You stated above that ...a good amount of time has passed since the original AFD. Did you compare the deleted article and find updated material? I don't have access to those deleted articles, so I wouldn't know. One suggestion comes to mind in response to the divisional line or measure question you proposed above: if it's a CSD by a NPP reviewer, perhaps a brief discussion with the reviewer beforehand would help if an admin is hesitant? It should be the responsibility of both, not to mention the amount of time it would save avoiding root canals at AfD. I believe the CSD template mentions NPP triage or something along that line? Atsme 💬 📧 00:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Look, I just have a mop and a bucket here. I clean up barf on the floor. It wasn't barf on the floor. It's got a source or two, might be weak, I removed the speedy. Probably going to get deleted anyway but I believe AFD is the proper course of action. There's no copyvio, no BLP issue, no threat, no need for immediate removal--i.e. no need for "speedy" deletion. The claim of notability as an athlete seemed to me to have at least enough credibility to warrant a discussion. There is no deadline. If I made a mistake (which is entirely possible) it will all work out in the wash as subject-matter experts will weigh in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Gooooooooooooooooood grief. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
My sentiments, exactly. Between the redirects and non-notables the backlog at NPP is off the charts @ nearly 15,000 articles to review. Atsme 💬 📧 22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I put all the ones that weren't already at AfD at Afd. The list is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves. RedPatch (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Umm, are you really putting all those Scottish League players on AfD without due diligence? Are multiple more Scottish league players going to be added to the AfD queue?? It's as if Scotland has no sports news service! Do they even have newspapers up there! O wait, they do, so where is all the WP:BEFORE ?? I had a look through the nominations for deletion and I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be sources added for at least one of those players. :/ Govvy (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

These articles should not have been created without sources demonstrating notability - the RFC established that. That's the issue, not with overworked NPP volunteers sending them to AFD to be dealt with because the speedy was declined. BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Improve don't delete, and remember WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@SuperJew: An alternative to deletion was attempted; incubation. When that was rejected, it was appropriate to bring the article to AFD, given the backlog at NPP, and the ongoing issue with sports editors created articles without demonstrating notability and instead expecting other editors to do it for them. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how nominating these for AFD is controversial. Half of them don't meet the old WP:NFOOTY (as they haven't played in an WP:FPL), and the rest only scrape by NFOOTY based on 1-3 appearances, but seem to fail WP:GNG (and so we were deleting articles like this even before the changes to NFOOTY). The problem is the editor creating lots of non-notable articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Joseph2302. Crowsus (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Update, a couple of the pages just got deleted as "Speedy Close" due to being created by a sockpuppet of a banned user (does that apply to all of the articles?). See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ol1vercloff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Thomas. RedPatch (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Juventus nicknameEdit

One of Juventus' nicknames is Bianconeri (Whiteblacks lit.). Which translation should there be? Should there be the literally translation or not? Dr Salvus 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Whiteblack" is not a word in English. The best English translation would be "the black and whites" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Just an aside, there is a gridiron football team called the Ottawa RedBlacks, so you could call the the Whiteblacks, although I agree 'white and blacks' is probably better as a translation. RedPatch (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The translation should be a note, the Bianaconeri should be written in Italian context on the English wiki. Govvy (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think Dr's question is regarding the order of the colours: should we translate "bianconeri" (literally "whiteblacks") into "Black and Whites" (the most natural-sounding English translation) or "White and Blacks" (the translation more akin to the Italian version)? Nehme1499 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd write Whiteblacks for the literal translation (in a note) and The White and Blacks. Dr Salvus 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
How do reliable sources translate it? This is no different to the thread above about translating the Catalonia national team : editors translating something themselves is OR. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
"White and Blacks" is definitely more common than "Black and Whites" according to Google. Both "whiteblacks" and "blackwhites" yield almost no results. UEFA themselves use White and Blacks. Same as this book and Corriere.it. Nehme1499 17:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Juventus themselves use Black & White, in their story headings e.g. 1, 2, and their marketing e.g. membership page. I think it rather depends on whether people are doing a literal translation, as explicitly in the book mentioned above (whose English is fluent but definitely non-native) or using the natural English equivalent, which would be black and white that way round. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Spike 'em, (Sometimes, I'd break OR, to be honest) well there are sites which provide translations for Bianco and for Neri. Dr Salvus 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
When I checked google translate (and got redirected to google dictionary), this was the description I got:
Player or fan of a team that, like Juventus (or Udinese, Ascoli, Cesena, Massese, Siena, etc.) wear these colors.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Crystalpalace6810, they can also be called Bianconeri, that would be the equivalent for Chelsea's Blues or Liverpool's Reds. The only difference is that in Italian two adjectives can be merged into an only word. Dr Salvus 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean that I think it is a term used to describe the fans, not the club.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Crystalpalace6810, and no. You can sometimes see Il club bianconero (The club whiteblack lit.) Dr Salvus 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Remind me not to use google translate again....Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Crystalpalace6810 I'd use only google translate until March 2021 because I had made some terrifying grammatical mistakes. This helped me to reduce the number of errors (but I still make some). Dr Salvus 19:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't speak Italian, so it's bad translations or no translations. I'd leave it for the Italians to decide.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Must be contacted a wiki-translator who knowns Italian and English to resolve this. However, there are an uefa.com article about clubs' nicknames and here Bianconeri is translated as "The Black and Whites".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Page ideaEdit

Me again. May I suggest that we create a "list of major association football comebacks" page with different sections for different deficits that have been overturned (1 goal deficit, 2 goal deficit, 3 goal deficit, etc). It may be proven that this is a very stupid idea (which seems to be happening a lot to me on this talk page), but I think it may work.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What would the criteria for inclusion be? Because comebacks happen every week all around the world. Nehme1499 03:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Just be reasonable. A comeback from two goals down in the premier league is a lot more notable than coming back from 7 goals down in the last minute of a Bolivian sunday league match.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Even though Bolivian league is much inferior to the English one, I don't believe so... a good idea would be creating an article where there's the list of the comebacks in two-legged magches in the Champions League or perhaps in the Copa Libertadores. Dr Salvus 06:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Good idea. It could just be a section in the league's records and statistics page.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
As long as it could be properly sourced and others are onboard, you have my vote. Although I wander if this hasn't been brought on by Everton's unfortunate comeback last night. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
As Nehme1499 wrote, this would need a criteria for inclusion. A comeback from one goal down is quite common. From two goals down also. Are we talking comebacks to win or to draw? In league games? Domestic cup games? International competitions? --SuperJew (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Are there any significant secondary sources covering lists of these types of comebacks? I'm just wondering if it would go against WP:OR. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
No problem with it, other than what will be the arbitrary decision of what a notable comeback entails. Shades of the cut-off to qualify as a one-club man which I may or may not have implemented myself about forty years ago. Seasider53 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't be defining any sort of inclusion criteria, other than sicgcov in reliable secondary sources describing it as a (superlative of choice) comeback. Each entry to such a list should stand on the merits of it's sourcing. Gricehead (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
To me, something like this sounds like WP:LISTCRUFT and would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nehme1499 12:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
This was a predictive request rather than a reactive one! Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Nope (but thinking about it, it might make the list- in a top flight and a comeback from 2 down to keep a team in the premier league is pretty notable). Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
There's Comeback_(sports)#Association football. -Koppapa (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It's (almost) all unsourced, and needs cleanup. Nehme1499 13:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Don't like the idea as there is no criteria what would be included. When it's that notable, a match gets an own article. Kante4 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
My idea is that in the records and statistics page for every league, there is a comebacks section starting with the most notable ones. For example, for the champions league, first on the list would be Barcelona 6-1 PSG (only comeback from 4 goals down to win), then all of the comebacks from 3-0 down to win (the only one I can remember of the top of my head is liverpool 4-0 Barcelona) then the comebacks from 3-0 down to draw and then win in another way (away goals or penalties, for example), so Liverpool 3-3 AC Milan (liverpool win on penalties) and spurs 3-2 Ajax (spurs win on away goals) and so on and so forth.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Including comebacks over two legs and including penalties doesn't seem right to me. Should be single matches only. Seasider53 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a big fan of this, as I feel it could get out of hand very quickly, as fans will want their team highlighted in the list saying it was an important comeback, while others will say no. I can forsee this becoming a ridiculously long list that becomes impossible to manage or even look through. RedPatch (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the competition. If the competition only has one match, such as most tournaments, then only include one-match comebacks (you can't include second-leg comebacks in competitions with one leg). However, if a tournament has the potential for both one-match and two-match comebacks, such as the champions league, then include both (possibly with different sections for them). And we should work our way down-do the comebacks from the most goals to win, then from that same amount to draw, then the next amount of goals, et cetera (for example, comebacks from 5 down to win, then 5 down to draw, then 4 goals to win, then 4 goals to draw, etc). And if you don't think that two-legged comebacks should be included, then I won't include them.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

- realistically, it needs to meet WP:LISTN. You'd need to prove that sources are talking about comebacks as a topic. Do we have any sources that talk about this group of matches as a group? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Local Derby pagesEdit

Hi there, Just wondering if there is any special criteria for writing up a Local Football Derby page, notably a non-league derby. If there is sufficient information and sources, could a page be created? I have, I think, enough information on the Eastbourne Derby, played mainly between Eastbourne Town and Eastbourne United, although a few games played with Eastbourne Borough and until recently Langney Wanderers Advice please EddersGTI (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@EddersGTI: There are no specific criteria, other than having to satisfy WP:GNG. Nehme1499 13:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-playing staff being sent offEdit

Manager Darrell Clarke was shown a red card last night. Should he be included in the disciplinary record table or should that just be reserved solely for players? EchetusXe 12:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Just players, I think. Nehme1499 13:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Playoffs, play-offs, or play offs?Edit

Does anyone have strong opinions about, or know of specific context or usage patterns for, these variations on the compound? Playoffs is by far more common in sources (and also in Wikipedia I think); but it's still mixed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I use "play-offs"; I think it's the UK spelling? Nehme1499 18:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Changing search to British English, I agree it's more common there, at about half. So maybe it should be changed to playoffs in articles in American English? Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, per WP:COMMONALITY, maybe the closed-up verion playoffs is best throughout, since it's used commonly everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This will be an ENGVAR thing I'm sure. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I would use the variation the specific league uses. For example, the EFL uses "play-offs", while the MLS uses "playoffs". Nehme1499 10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed a ton of "play offs" to "playoffs". If someone prefers to hyphenate some of those, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

fanbanter.co.ukEdit

This is the first instance I have come across this reference addition, do we consider fanbanter.co.uk as a reliable source? [9] Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely tabloid-style low-value stuff. In this instance it's not particularly controversial, but is it really needed at all, there's a huge list of selfish players that have gone out on the town after a defeat. I'd assess it as not a reliable source, so the whole section should only really stay in if there's a RS that covers the same incident. Others may have a different view! Crowsus (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems like a BLP issue if it doesn't have multiple refs supporting it. I wouldn't say this place is reliable in any way. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that any source with the word "banter" in its name shouldn't be taken too seriously.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how reliable the source is, I don't see how this piece of information is notable enough to be included in the article. Nehme1499 10:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Player who have been called up by Juventus U23Edit

The article about this team has the list of every player called up this season. Is this excessive? Should I remove the players who haven't made their U23 debut and have had a just a few calls up? Or just put them in another subsection as done at Juventus F.C.? Dr Salvus 17:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If the club website doesn't list them in the squad then they probably shouldn't be in the article either. They should be in the season article if they played that season though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd put the excess players in the Youth Sector subjection (similarly to the U23 subsection in the senior team article). Nehme1499 21:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Response?Edit

This just came up on Harvey Elliott's talk page. Do I just ignore or is there a policy to revert such requests? This IP is either from London or North Liverpool so in theory they could be who they claim to be but I would bet a lot on it being a imposter. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree- just ignore it. Even if he does have evidence (such as a passport, as he says he does), how is he supposed to send it? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:OTRS. Nehme1499 21:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The source used (premier League) says it is Daniel James. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The very first reference at the page (Premier League, by name in infobox) has him as 'Elliott, Harvey Daniel James'. Eagleash (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
yeah the page wasnt even using the full name from the premier league source, i have edited to include his full name from the pl source.Muur (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)