Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

More nationality nonsense

Could I get some attention paid to Dzsenifer Marozsán. An IP keeps insisting that the captain of the German women's national team is Hungarian. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP doesn't seem to understand what nationality is. Another few pairs of eyes would be great --SuperJew (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

IP is technically correct. Hungary and Germany both recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, it's misleading to say she's a "Hungarian-born German" as this would imply she is not Hungarian, only born there. The best way to describe her is Hungarian-German. This is how she's described in the Hungarian article. "Dzsenifer Marozsán is a Hungarian-German football player who represents Germany." I think this would satisfy everybody and be accurate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, IP is claiming she isn't German at all. Secondly, I agree that she holds both nationalities, but the relevant one to her wikipage which is notable and existing due to her soccer career is the nationality relevant to her career, German. --SuperJew (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Standard protocol in these kind of cases (where nationality doesn't match birthplace) is not to mention it in the very opening, and to explain it later on. GiantSnowman 13:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Maroszan is a professional footballer who represents X and Germany". Following paragraph / section can then explain in more detail. This is especially common for Algerian / French combinations. Koncorde (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

First, her nationality and birth place does match, which is Hungary/Hungarian. Second, there is a sourced interview where she states she considers herself Hungarian which should be respected. Third, Germany does not seem to recognize dual citizenship, in order to be considered German she would need to give up her Hungarian citizenship. Her achievements should be worded to be clear she won international titles with Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.10.162 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get that information? Of course Germany recognises duel citizenship, as for any article we have a stylised layout which mentions who you play for, then that players highlights. Nationality issues where you're born should be the first paragraph after the introductory paragraphs. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably from a non EU site, this article says the restriction does not apply to EU/Swiss citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.10.162 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're reading far too deep into this, bylaws, laws, bending laws, getting around a law, "there is and there isn't". You want to ignore all hearsay, all possibility. Wikipedia is about presenting the facts in a clear concise way followed up by the citations. Keep it down to the basics please, a person was born in a country guarantees citizenship, (yes you can renounce) but no information for that has been provided in the article. She represents Germany through living in Germany? The article is very grey on this, how do you get there? How was she selected, is there missing heritage? If I was you I would find the information to fix the article, because atm to me, it's a poor article hardly scratching the surface. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

She (and her parents) became German before her 18th birthday. Sourced in article now. -Koppapa (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oleksandr Shutov

Can anyone take a look and detect what causes a Lua error after Soccerway link? Thanks in advance --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What error? GiantSnowman 17:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There was one earlier, now it's gone. Kante4 (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Cherno More's history

En edit war which dates back to 2013 appears to be resurrected by User:Rebelheartous. There was some discussion at the article's talk page but most of it took place at the bg wiki talk page. In May 2016, there was a judgement call made by User:Izvora (bg wiki admin) so it appeared that the dispute has been settled. The history section of the Bulgarian article was rewritten with sources from official/authentic documents and the English version is basically a translation.

I have reverted User:Rebelheartous' edits from 16 July and politely asked him to adhere to the bg wiki discussion. He has reverted my edit without explanation and claims that en wiki is a separate entity (which is formally true) and User:GiantSnowman has resolved the dispute there by banning User:Vtd and warning User:Okalinov. These actions by User:GiantSnowman were entirely appropriate, because the edits at that time were unsourced. This is not the case now. In any event, banning a user for a particular disruptive action is not equal to resolving a dispute involving that user.

My question is, what is the proper action from now onwards? Should we go through the same discussion again on en wiki (in English), or an en wiki admin can review the decision made by his bg colleague? An administrative involvement at the WP:AN/EW seems rather harsh to me, so I am seeking advice. Yavorescu (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to confuse bg wiki with en wiki. My edits here are simply based on where we left the discussion last time when User:GiantSnowman took actions against there two users. Sources provided by Okalinov now are 1) Cherno More's official site and 2) his personal website retrofootball.bg which is WP:SELFPUB in my opinion.

The aforementioned official documents refer to bg:ФК Тича article which is a completely different defunct club at present. Any history moments based on these documents should be referred to the respective article. As FC Ticha article is still non-existent in en wiki, I suggest we create it and place the information there.--Rebelheartous (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, both Ticha and Vladislav do not exist in their original form as they were forcibly merged in 1945 by the so called communist regime. Are you disputing the authenticity of the documents or just the neutrality of the site they are published at? These documents are editions by the Bulgarian Football Union which is the official entity governing football in Bulgaria, so WP:SELFPUB seems inappropriate to me. Anyway, if you wish to resurrect the discussion at en wiki, feel free to do it on the article's talk page. Starting an edit war is not the proper way to defend your position. Yavorescu (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter if they voluntarily merged. What matters though is both clubs ceased to exist in 1945 to form Cherno More. Their distinct histories remained intact, accordingly. Similar case is when Septemvri and CDV were merged into CSKA in May 9, 1948. CSKA does not claim its roots long before this well-known foundation date, although there are some far-fetched red fans that believe this story.

The uploaded files by Okalinov are just typical football handbooks of that time. They are not officially recognised documents of BFU which was called Bulgarian Football Federation (BFF) during communist regime. It is rather hard to imagine BFF would have issued such documents as it would compromise much of football history in Bulgaria, not just Cherno More's. It would've given many clubs the right to 'steal' from others and trace back their histories to whoever knows when.

Kindly check this user's edits on both wikis, as well as Vtd's. They are no ordinary contributors, rather than the type of fans i mentioned earlier - fanatics deeply obsessed with their team of interest spreading stories hardly anyone would find plausible. This is why no discussion whatsover is likely to happen. Since I started clearing up Cherno More's article several years ago, nobody has supported their theories. On the contrary, I already provided you with an opinion of another user on bg wiki. Understandably enough, this guy doesn't want to take part in any useless discussions.

I don't know if you've traced article's editing history. Did you know they used to cite 1909 as Cherno More's foundation year through this IP address? And later, they reverted it to 1913 claiming different beginnings. None of them sourced except for the personal fansite created for that purpose.--Rebelheartous (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what CSKA claim regarding their history, their article is incorrect anyway because the current club has nothing to do with the original club from 1948 -- it is simply renamed Litex Lovech and there is a truckload of official documents for that. It doesn't matter what type of users are Okalinov and Vtd; as far as I am concerned, all ordinary users have equal rights. There is only one truth (usually) and that's what really matters; our obligation as editors is to stick to the facts. What makes you think these documents are not officially recognized by BFU? How about a more recent document from 2013, the honorary diploma at bg:Иван Моканов? It is issued on 16 September 2013 and is signed by the current president of BFU Borislav Mikhailov. It says: "for particular great contributions for the development of Bulgarian football and in connection with the 100th anniversary of PFC Cherno More". Regarding the foundation year 1909, that is debatable. Yavorescu (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly missing my point with CSKA. All I was saying was that as CSKA is not entitled to claim earlier history and convert it into theirs, such is the case with Cherno More or whoever club you could think of.

Okalinov and Vtd are NO ordinary users. They keep vandalising pages ignoring warnings and adding controversial facts based on their personal beliefs. They never wanted to contribute with any recent events in Cherno More article. They just want to steal history and attach it to their favorite team’s one.

What makes me think these handbooks are what they actually are – handbooks? Maybe because I am in a possession of a few of these handbooks myself and they are far from being called documents, rather than football guides of the respected season. As I already told you, BFU does not issue any verification documents proving one’s club history or another. This is why football portals like bgclubs.eu exist so they could list as much bulgarian football clubs history as possible.

Both of these foundation years are very, very debatable. You cannot simply indicate a certain date and after a short period of time change it to another one. As Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states: “Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.“ What Wikipedia is also not is a field of original research. I really don't see how honorary dimplomas prove anything or could make a football club an ancient one. So until any reliable sources proving Cherno More's foundation year is not 1945 appear, I suggest we stick to it and take care of vandalism.--Rebelheartous (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Handbooks or not, this stuff was written for ~50 years by hundreds of different authors and was issued under the aegis of an official institution. On the other hand, there is only bgclubs.eu. The CSKA article at bgclubs.eu is incorrect and is not updated to reflect the fact that the club currently competing in the Bulgarian First League has nothing to do with the authentic club. Now, that is precisely what you call "stealing history". How can you determine this site as reliable source when it doesn't contain a single word about the biggest fraud in the history of Bulgarian football? Yavorescu (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep diverting attention with swtiching to other clubs' history and I still don't know why.

It could easily have been written for centuries and still not be an official proof of pre-1945 foundation date. So provide us with a reliable source. Otherwise this discussion ends here.--Rebelheartous (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was you who mentioned CSKA first. I already explained why I consider your source bgclubs.eu as unreliable. Cherno More's history is documented well enough and it is not uncommon the founding date of a club to be considered the one of its predecessor (Hamburger SV and Admira Wacker come to mind). There are counterexamples, of course. In principle, I agree with you that a lie written for decades doesn't make it anything other than a lie. Please provide convincing evidence that supports your claim. Yavorescu (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

CSKA's foundation date is the same as in its respected article. So what are you trying to prove exactly?

You can check for yourself the number of times bgclubs.eu is mentioned in various articles. This site is a valuable football portal and many Bulgarian football club articles cite it. So until you provide us with a reliable source for an earlier year, there is no reason not to cite bgclubs.eu. After all, you said Cherno More's supposedly older history is well documented so providing a source or two will be as easy as pie, right?--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

CSKA (the authentic club) went bankrupt and was dissolved. According to the article PFC CSKA Sofia it still exists and has many honours, which is not true. According to bgclubs.eu it still exists and has the listed honours, which is not true. I am trying to prove that bgclubs.eu is not a reliable source. That is easy enough. I don't dispute the fact that it is used as source in Wikipedia articles. Please revert the edit you just made to PFC Cherno More Varna, that is vandalism or at least is very close to it. The fact that nobody from WP:FOOTY has commented yet does not mean that you are right. Please do the same with bg:ПФК Черно море (Варна), this is not acceptable behavior. Yavorescu (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So now CSKA's history is not correct. I can see you have issues with many football clubs articles. However, none of them sourced. Everything is simply based on your opinion, rather than just facts. Get yourself familiar with WP:NOR and what a reliable source is.--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't come up with the WP:NOR stuff, it is not applicable. The PFC Cherno More Varna article before your changes has properly sourced text as history -- from published sources by an official institution governing football at that time. I already pointed out that bgclubs.eu does not contain correct information regarding CSKA and therefore cannot be considered reliable source. The article PFC CSKA Sofia is also incorrect -- the foundation date is correct, but the club has been dissolved. UEFA, CAS and BFU do not consider the team currently competing in the Bulgarian First League as the authentic CSKA; a fact well known to you. How can you possibly claim that bgclubs.eu's information regarding Cherno More is correct, when they cannot get it right even for the most successful Bulgarian club? Yavorescu (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

CSKA Sofia is an active club with a correct foundation date. I'm really wasting precious time on you.--Rebelheartous (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

An active club which is actually one year old. The authentic CSKA which was founded in 1948 has been dissolved in 2016, but your source applies double standards which only proves that it is not reliable. Yavorescu (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There's another source claiming otherwise?--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of sources. The license issued by BFU is an official document; it was issued to Litex Lovech initially but the requisites were subsequently changed to CSKA-Sofia (not permitted by the current club licensing regulations but that is a different topic). There is also an official letter by the UEFA administration and two media releases by CAS. There is an official court decision for the liquidation of the authentic club. All of that would be original research in your book, of course, only bgclubs.eu is the correct source. Sigh. Yavorescu (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

*...but the requisites were subsequently changed to CSKA-Sofia* This is the key to understanding this case. Both clubs switched their places so Litex was sent to V FG while CSKA took its place in A FG. Like it or not we have to embrace reality.--Rebelheartous (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not reality but a blatant lie. The requisites were changed because Litex was moved to Sofia and renamed. CSKA-Sofia (the new club) is renamed Litex Lovech while Litex Lovech is the renamed Botev Lukovit. There are official documents available. Yavorescu (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BFU's list of champions includes Cherno More with 4 titles. Needless to say, this is impossible if the club was actually founded in 1945. It also says that Cherno More is successor of Ticha and Vladislav. Admittedly, the list on their official website is slightly outdated. List of Bulgarian football champions contains the same information. It is not surprising that it coincides with the sources cited in the Cherno More article; after all they are official publications of BFU's predecessor organization. Meanwhile, could you please stop the edit war? Yavorescu (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Tweaks

I just performed some overall adjustments in Álvaro Negredo, adding some new refs for example. In one of those moves I sourced/relocated his international goals chart, but it "came unhinged" (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Negredo&diff=next&oldid=791758890). Subsequently it became better (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Negredo&diff=next&oldid=792238457), but now it looks like only the last goal is sourced.

Attentively, thanks a lot in advance. --Quite A Character (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dated and reffed like the stats table. ClubOranje^T 12:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Overkill

MORE undue squad templates, please see Sandro Ramírez! Getting quite tiresome... --Quite A Character (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: Yes, Mikemor92 just created more of the Club World squad templates (including some which have been previously deleted), I was considering taking all the templates in Category:FIFA Club World Cup winning squad navigational boxes to TfD. The previous discussions have all been pretty clear that these templates are unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Now nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 25#FIFA Club World Cup winning squad navigational boxes. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Pablo Ferré Elías and Pedro Pablo Ferré Elías

I came across this stub for a Spanish coach/referee named Pablo Ferré Elías who worked in El Salvador and Chile in the 1930s and 40s. Is there anyone with any expertise in this area who might know if this could be the Pedro Pablo Ferré Elías who has been mentioned coaching Fidel Castro when he was young? [1] The details are sketchy but the one in Cuba was identified as a Catalan priest who was also a football coach and referee. The timeline seems to match. This would be an important detail if they were one in the same. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mundo Deportivo has a brief article about Ferré Elías' work with the Republic of San Salvador national football team, and it mentions that he worked in "La Habana" (Cuba) before and after forming the Salvadorean national team. There's no mention of a young Castro, but I'd say this is reliable evidence that he worked in Cuba in the 1930s. Jogurney (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles created by Durneydiaz

Durneydiaz (talk · contribs) has just been indefinitely blocked as a result of this discussion at WP:ANI. This user has created over a thousand articles mostly about South American footballers. A few articles have recently moved to draftspace for a number of reasons, including failing to cite sources and poor Spanish-English translation. It may be worth some people here having a look at these drafts as many appear to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Hack (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that many of these articles pass NFOOTY. I added some text and inline citations to Draft:Maximiliano Sigales which should satisfy NFOOTY and GNG - could an admin move it back to the mainspace? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Box updates

Simple question of "yes" or "no", no gray area there i believe,

Sandro Ramírez has retired from the Spanish national team (at under-21 level that is) due to his age, if he never appears for them at A level his international career is over, no?

User:Mattythewhite, with whom i agree 100%, says that when a player retires from his/her club, we remove the PC update from their infobox. Thus, to follow suit when the same happens at NT level would be to remove the corresponding parameter, a matter of simple coherence.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If the question is whether to remove his NT update date from infobox, I would say the answer is no - he's eligible to play for the senior national team. It should be removed when he retires from football or explicitly announces retiring from international football. --SuperJew (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My answer is no because 1) The past precedence has indicated that we do not merely remove the national team parameter in a player's infobox as it provides information regarding the timing and date of the last update of the career and national statistics. 2) An editor rarely removes the national team parameter because the updating of career and national statistics are ongoing. 3) I can understand an editor removes the career and national team parameter of a player if he is retired from football but in this case the player is not. In conclusion, the player is not retired professionally nor internationally so to remove his NT update field is not reasonable. Davekgoodnight (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN, i see that there is no consensus, as an administrator (important to emphasise it here i think) sees it fit - as do i - to remove the parameter if a player is not playing at a given level, while others do not. From where i stand you win @Davekgoodnight:, sorry to bother you enough to be called a VANDAL (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandro_Ram%C3%ADrez&diff=792292521&oldid=792264700) that REMOVED stats (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandro_Ram%C3%ADrez&diff=791621551&oldid=791326302)!

Thank you all for your participation --Quite A Character (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think User:Mattythewhite (the admin) agreed to remove the parameter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandro_Ram%C3%ADrez He also said the points I raised made sense at the end of discussion. Besides, I did issue a full apology to you in my talk page if there was a misunderstanding regarding the very first message so I do not know why you take the issue to this page. If you still feel offended by the message, I hereby apologize to you, sincerely. Peace. Davekgoodnight (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies accepted @Davekgoodnight:, i took the issue to this page to let people know that i was going to accept the overall decision. Sorry for any inconvenience, peace --Quite A Character (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Significance of Spanish Regional Championships?

Could I ask any experts on Spanish football if the pre-Liga regional championships are considered official games? It should apply across the board to all tournaments of that sort, but my specific concern relates to the Biscay Championship. The Spanish wiki has acknowledged Domingo Acedo as Athletic Bilbao's youngest player and scorer from the 1914-15 version of that tournament and given an independent source for this, however the English wiki and most sources credit Iker Muniain as having broken the club records in 2009, which is what I thought was the case as well. It is possible that the Biscay Championship isn't considered an official tournament, but it probably should be since there was no national league so it was an important concern for the clubs. The other thing is that some sources claiming Muniain to be the record holder state that he beat Agustín Gaínza - but Gainza's appearances as a 16-year-old were also in the Biscay Championship! So is it maybe just that some media overlooked Acedo altogther, and that has been recorded incorrectly on (English) Wikipedia as a result? Muniain is definitely the club record holder for La Liga and for European games, and Acedo definitely for the Copa del Rey. If anyone has additional knowledge in relation to this, please let me know. If not, the text above would also be a useful reference if/when I edit the players' articles to relfect this small change! Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I can answer you. The matches of the Spanish Regional Championships were absolutely official, as they used to qualify for the Copa del Rey. Anyway, they are not too much notable. Asturkian (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

2006 World Cup Assists

Noticed the 2006 world cup assists page was a total mess. Figo and Totti were joint leaders at 4 a piece, not Riquelme. I edited the template but I am not sure what other clean up has to be done.

Edits have been undone. The user was referring to sites like Transfermarkt to back his case. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fb team templates England

Does anyone know what purpose the templates in Category:Fb team templates England serve? All they do is generate wikilinked club names, which can be easily typed out without need for a template. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Mattythewhite, Fb team templates are used with templates like {{Fb cl team}} and others (see Category:Fb templates). you can find some discussion in the archives here and here as well as many other places if you search the archives. my personal opinion is that they should all be eventually replaced and deleted. for the tables, we should be using Module:Sports table. in other places, we should be just using simple wikilinks with the "2" replacement series (e.g., {{Fb a2 team}} as direct replacement for {{Fb a team}}). See also, the many other fb templates in Category:Fb templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

They're not needed, and some have been deleted at TFD in the past. GiantSnowman 08:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on old qualification articles

I recently cleaned up heavy vandalism on the article 1998 FIFA World Cup qualification that had been going on for months. Is there anyone available to check this article and any other article like this for further inaccuracy and vandalism? Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Loan spells

Hi, for the benefit of ‎Chelsdog, please can we reiterate consensus on how separate loan spells should be listed in the infobox. See Jay Dasilva to understand where I am coming from. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure on the official stance, but in this case I'd say/I thought that as his previous loan spell officially ended and his new one started after that previous one had ended it should be listed as a separate spell. R96Skinner (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the wording of both articles on Chelsea's and Charlton's websites, as well as the BBC's article on the story, indicate to me that as he is "re-joining", it is a separate spell and should be classified as such in the player's infobox. Exxy (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on this re Ryan Christie who I believe is the same. Currently showing as a single spell although he returned to Celtic (albeit just for the summer break) so I would like it confirmed which display type is correct.Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

i am not sure there was a consensus or not, but if a loan was renewed in June or early July, why not group it? But sometimes the loan was separated by a pre-season which the player returned to play for the mother club for a short period, so better separate it. Or by avoiding argument, separate them all unless a straight 2-year loan contract was signed? Matthew_hk tc 04:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is long-time consensus that separate spells are listed separately in the infobox. See e.g. 2012, 2014, 2015. If an existing loan is extended during a season, that counts as the same spell, but if there's any gap at all, it's a new loan and so a separate spell. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Christie was clearly two separate loans, as the second deal was done as part-exchange for Jonny Hayes. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Was it, officially? I thought it was a separate deal at the same time (obviously it would have been the same meeting where both moves were decided!). I'll tidy it now then, thanks.Crowsus (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

it was actually all done, apart from the club field was empty so it ignored it all. And the Euro games were in the hidden boxes! Sorted now. Crowsus (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Club Rivalry Pages

Since May of last year, Akocsg (talk · contribs) has consistently been trying to insert various regional and invitational games to the honours section of the Fenerbahce-Galatasaray rivalry and Besiktas-Fenerbahce rivalry pages. This is what each section looked like before and after, for Fener-Gala [2] [3] and for Fener-Besiktas [4] [5]. The awards added included an invitational tournament played four times in 50 years on an irregular basis, a part of a former regional tournament played only between the three clubs in question, and a cup that was played as a consolation game between the losers of the Turkish Cup and runners up of the league. The editor's argument is that since the clubs technically played each other in these games, they are a part of the rivalry and should be included. However, my view is that they arent actual trophies to list in honours counts in these articles, and when you look at the consensus for the rest of these rivalry articles, they do not include similar tournaments. Man Utd-Liverpool's rivalry page doesnt include the Lancashire Senior Cup or the International Champions Cup since they are regional and invitational games despite the clubs having faced off in them which would technically make them 'part of the rivalry'. And Arsenal-Chelsea's page doesnt include the London Challenge Cup for example even though both teams played in it. Talkpage discussions between us have reached a bit of a standstill due to the differences in views so could anyone help out and explain who is in the right here? Davefelmer (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Part of the rivalry, therefore relevant to the article. The absence of equivalent trophies elsewhere is irrelevant. So long as they are sourced, they can be included. There should obviously be a difference between them as Senior Honours, and competitive friendlies, but in an amateur history context that relevance is less important (particularly for the Lancashire Senior Cup which used to be a competition of relevance until the FA Cup and League Cup took precedence). Koncorde (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying there should be a seperation into sections for some of the awards? None of the content in question is from amateur times, these are all trophies that have run during the professional era. Now I am not the greatest expert on Turkish football so if someone that is could explain the merit and status of these competitions in Turkey, that would be helpful in assessing their status as 'honours'. Because at present you have four team regional invitational leagues listed, you have competitions for the teams that finished 9th-18th in the league listed there etc and I can't see how those could have official status as trophies in the same way as the national league, cup, supercup etc. By all means include them in the prose or the 'games played' section where you list results, but putting them in the honours section seems like a pretty silly inflation of the section.

They arent sourced but I think with this stuff, you can always cherry pick sources that illustrate your point. For instance,[6] [7] these sources don't list the competitions the editor brought in, but I'm sure there is one out there that does. I guess I could go and use these to revert the article back to how it was before, but if he brings another source that shows his side of the argument, there will just be another standstill. Thats why I always thought article-to-article consistency was important. That if none of the other similar articles list equivalent info, then one shouldnt be the exception. Since this is an encyclopedia, isnt it important for the info to remain consistent across the board?Davefelmer (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What is relevant to one team, or rivalry, may not be relevant to another team or rivalry. While we can generally agree that the Atatürk Cup etc wouldn't count towards a "most successful club ever" chart (which would focus only only in officially sanctioned domestic FA, UEFA and FIFA competitions) for the purpose of two clubs that have played each other within the scope of their rivalry, then it is relevant. For the same reason we include the Super Cup on the Liverpool Vs Manchester Utd even though it was just a one off.

The issue would come if competitions were being introduced to create a landslide effect such as where only one team takes part. So for instance a competition available only to teams finishing 9th to 18th seems odd. The individual times they played each other (or if they genuinely had a historical significance) would be fine, but trying to create an equivalence between those trophies and the League Championship is clearly synthesis and not a Neutral Point of View. Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Koncorde (talk · contribs) for confirming my reasons and points which I have tried to make clear numerous times now to Davefelmer (talk · contribs). And they aren't unsourced either. I have also shown him the official club websites on my talk page, where these aforementioned official trophies and titles are listed. I really don't understand why he keeps claiming that they are unsourced and not relevant continuously. Regards,Akocsg (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Akocsg (talk · contribs), I would personally question the 8th to 19th place one if this is meant to be a list of competitive honours. Invitational pre-season competitions are friendlies even if the club lists them. Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean with the 8th to 19th place one? There is no such competition as far as I know. About the others, they were not friendlies or solely pre-season competitions. Those that are listed are definitely worth mentioning and definitely not any youth titles, I can tell that much. Akocsg (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Read the wiki pages for the tournaments then. And pre-season and invitational tournaments are just another way of saying friendly! How do you not understand that? You keep saying these are worth mentioning without any evidence or argument. Just because they existed and the clubs played in them does not mean they are a big part of the rivalry. You've now gone and added Istanbul city-wide games. Its just an attempt to glorify a rivalry by whatever means necessary. There is no consensus to keep adding these, and there is no consensus across rivalry articles across wiki to be implementing invitational and city wide games. You havent presented a single neutral third party source in support of any of these either. So if nobody wants to get involved in the debate, I am going to be bold in accordance with wiki policy and revert them back tomorrow. Davefelmer (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep on and on, repeating your pointless arguments over and over. There's nothing about "glorifying" (what's that about anyway?) it when the very torunament where the rivalry began is added. It's where the rivalry was born. I already mentioned it above. You agreed to it yourself. You keep contradicting yourself! So please give me a break and stop deleting/vandalizing stuff when you clearly don't have a point and in-depth knowledge of the leagues/tournaments in question. I have already posted two official sources, while you showed one single source which is of a private person, and now you claim me of not supporting those titles with sources. You are not in accordance with wiki policy at all, on the contrary. If you simply keep deleting content I will have to report it accordingly. Akocsg (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Glorifying is when you manipulate data to make something seem more grand than it is. Adding a ton of invitational and city-wide games to make it seem a rivalry between a team with 50 and 30 trophies is one between two teams of 80 and 70 trophies makes that rivalry seem much bigger than it is. And stop saying this is where the rivalry began. All these cups began in the 50s and 60s, the clubs were decades and decades old by then! The older league titles I accepted the case for and left, but if you tell me 3 team regional games and invitational tournaments first played between the clubs in question in 1964 is where the rivalry began, that is just silly. There is no case there, the sources you posted were the clubs themselves, who are not neutral and third party on the subject, and often include friendlies and the like which arent official trophies on their sites to glorify their counts (i.e. Liverpool listing their youth titles). No third party source corroborates these. I listed two above and can list more. You can take it to arbitration if you like, but you changed long standing edits without consensus to be reverted multiple times by multiple editors, you didnt use neutral sources and went against article consensus across wiki. I've tried to reason and find a compromise (I left the older league titles) while you keep saying I am making "pointless" arguments by saying you need neutral sources and should look at the consensus for literally all the other rivalry pages on wiki... Davefelmer (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You just keep arguing without admitting and cooperating at all. Now you claim that it is "glorifying" by just adding important and relevant titles that are an essential part of the rivalry. The invitational ones are gone now, which is a concession on my part. While you keep pushing your POV relentlessly. User Koncorde (talk · contribs) confirmed by point abpve, while you have no support but simply keep deleting content. If you don't stop and start edit-warring you will be reported. Please read Wikipedia rules first and understand Wiki standards in these kind of situations. I used official sources by both sides which confirm the content I insert, while you have no sources at all. The only one who tried to reason and find a compromise was me, while you simply keep accusing and distorting facts! I'm acting according to the consensus for the other rivalries too, the Italian championshsip for example starts in the 1890s.... That's what I'm doing with the Turkish ones, adding those past titles and championships too, which are especially relevant and important for these respective rivalries. This was already discussed and confirmed above, once again...Akocsg (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What invitational games did you remove? I see absolutely nothing different, beyond you adding city-wide games to the table. What did you take out there? One editor being impartial, who said himself invitational games should be removed whether the club lists them or not, is not a consensus. You used nothing but the clubs themselves which are not neutral third party sources. As I referenced with other club articles, these are not reliably neutral on the subject and often add tons of stuff to their counts that would otherwise never be used like with Liverpool. When better sources are available, we use those. In this case, here is the rivalry page complete with trophy tally on Soccerway which is one of the most frequently used sources on here (), Eurosport which is one of the most frequently used sources on here (http://www.eurosport.com/football/teams/galatasaray/teamcenter.shtml), worldfootball.net which is often quoted especially for honours () and one more I previously listed (). Not one lists the stuff you keep inserting, and these are more reliabe and neutral than the ones you use. The Soccerway one lists the Istanbul League which I personally don't agree with but since its there then its there, so you could use that one. But nothing else you added is corroborated. You arent acting to any consensus. Yes, Milan clubs list their old Italian Championships, as I agreed to leave on here. But they dont list the Milan County Cup (if there was one) which would be the equivalent. In England, the equivalents to the Chancellor Cup, Ataturk Cup etc would not be the Old First Division but stuff like the Lancashire Senior Cup and the Manchester Senior Cup (matching the Istanbul ones) yet these arent listed anywhere. Hence there is no consensus for any of these. The early league titles being important to the rivalry I accepted before, but regional cups and invitational games that began in the 40s, 50s and 60s when the clubs were 50 years old are not.Davefelmer (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Akocsg (talk · contribs)you showed me their website that listed a total trophy number consistent with what you listed. But as I explained above and illustrated with other sources, individual sources can be cherry picked for either side of the debate. As Koncorde states above, just because a club lists something does not mean it should be counted as an honour. For example, as I mentioned on your talk page, Liverpool list their youth cups and reserve league wins on their honours page, that doesnt mean they should be included as trophies with the first team. Clubs sourcing themselves are hardly neutral, third party sources sometimes. I already said the earliest league titles made sense to keep, since they were official top flight titles before the national league began, but equally thought the cup runner up games and invitational matches (i.e. friendly; they are invitational, played irregularly and with no qualification criteria) should not be included, as it merely artificially bloats the section and acts as a form of glorification for the rivalry. A better place for these would be in the prose and matches played sections. I would think that is a fair compromising position. But if you still don't agree, perhaps someone else would like to comment on the debate so we can get wider perspectives. Davefelmer (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Common ways of shortening a club's full name - include or not?

Wikipedia is a great place for finding out how to properly refer to a club. Most of the times, however, the club's full name is much too long to be used in writing. Therefore the opening paragraph of most good club articles includes common way(s) of referring to the club, if you don't want to use the full name.

I have noticed that, for some reason, articles about English clubs often only state the club's full name in the opening paragraph, omitting other ways in which the club is most commonly referred to.

Therefore I recently started adding these most common shorter names to the articles for some Premier League clubs, but I suspect I will get some reversions (have already got one), so instead of getting into multiple edit wars about this, I thought I'd bring up the subject here for debate. If I can get a consensus for my view on this I could refer to this discussion when editing.

A user who reverted my edit on Arsenal F.C. argued that my edit was "[n]ot really necessary because most clubs have 'Football Club' chopped off in common usage". I agree that for people who are knowledgeable about English football this is obvious, but Wikipedia articles should be written also for people who have no knowledge about naming traditions in English football.

I realize opening paragraphs are to be kept short and clean, so only the most commonly used short name(s) should be included there (and not lots of obscure club nicknames), but why omit these short forms altogether? Most times the shorter name is more commonly used than the club's full name, so it's weird to leave it out in an encyclopedic article.

I might not have covered all arguments for and against, so I'm looking forward to hearing any thoughts other users might have on this subject. Aikclaes (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally not required in lede for English teams because it's usually then discarded for the remainder of the article in any case. Disambiguation, or nicknames may be the only time I would do it. Koncorde (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde Thanks for your input. Since your first sentence doesn't have a subject, I'm not sure if you're referring to just "football club" or any parts of a full name that is not commonly used when referring to the club. My issue covers all long full names (not just "X Football Club") and the more commonly used shorter names. An encyclopedia should have the most commonly used shorter names listed in the first sentence, in my opinion. A reader shouldn't have to browse through the whole article to see what alternate names for the club are arbitrarily used in the article. Aikclaes (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As you like it, but that's how it is. Koncorde (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Having seen what you did on the Arsenal article, I don't think there's any need for it. It's just cluttering the opening sentence (which has been identified as a problem on Wikipedia more generally). Number 57 12:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah sorry but I agree with the above. In some cases it might be helpful to mention different short versions (Sheff Wed or WBA spring to mind) but in this case it's a very simple, and well known, name. Arsenal F.C. is the article title, Arsenal is above the Infobox and the term used in the body of the text, and Arsenal Football Club is in the box and the opening sentence. Even if the reader somehow doesn't know that Arsenal is the common form, to use either of the others would also be correct. The only 'wrong way' I have seen of the name is in German media where they often call them Arsenal London. There is possibly also an issue in USA with London Arsenal, and in Argentina due to Arsenal Sarandi. But all that is correctly omitted from the lead. Really don't see any explanation being required where the common name is just the full name minus the Football Club suffix.Crowsus (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think for teams like Toronto FC, Paris Saint Germain and Juventus F.C., it might be worth stating, but if consensus is not to include, so be it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this what the nickname parameter in the infobox is for? I can't see how adding an entire line worth of text to the first sentence of the PSG article is helping readers. Number 57 13:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 Why change back my edits on six Premier League club articles, instead of just reverting my edits? It's easier for you, and I get notified. But obviously you prefer I'm unaware? Aikclaes (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Because in several cases I didn't revert your edits to exactly what they were before. Also worth noting there is no automatic right to notification if your edits are changed; if you're bothered about it, that's what a watchlist is for. Number 57 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 In five out of sixes cases you just removed my contributions (and in the sixth case you removed a nickname that was there before me), so your explanation for choosing not to simply revert my edits is not valid. I'm not saying it bothered me; I just wanted to expose your sneakiness. Aikclaes (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the shame. Whilst I did happen to remove exactly what you added in several cases, there were several others where I didn't, e.g. Bournemouth, Everton, Colombus Crew, Orlando City or Toronto. Also worth noting that I wasn't the one that removed your edits from the Leicester article. Number 57 15:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 Huh? In all the examples given by you above you did just that: removed exactly what I had added – and without reverting my edits, which would have been much simpler, and less sneaky. Aikclaes (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The diff above are the combined edits from both of us. If I had removed exactly what you added, it would look like this. Number 57 17:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I started this issue myself, asking for arguments for and against, to try and find a solution to a problem which no one has really addressed here (missing info about how teams are commonly referred to). You came in and gave your opinion, with the argument that it's "clutter" (which basically can be said about any info someone personally doesn't happen to like), then, instead of waiting for more people's opinions, you obviously went through my contributions and immediately started mass removing what I'd added, using the same one word argument: "Unnecessary". All in all, not behavior that I would recommend, especially for someone with administrator status. Aikclaes (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A user reverted my edit on the New York Red Bulls, where I had added AKA "the Red Bulls". The short form "Red Bulls" is how the club is referred to throughout the article, so I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the opening sentence. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. Why leave this info out? For someone who isn't well read on the MLS, or even football, it is useful to know how the club is commonly referred to. What are these people meant to do? Read the whole article and keep score of what ways the club is referred to? Google media articles? Check the club's own website? This info should be readily available in a decent encyclopedia, as I propose: in a subordinate clause in the opening paragraph. I honestly don't see why some editors are so against it. Aikclaes (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned already, it's clutter which is making opening sentences unnecessarily long. Also, I seriously doubt that anyone would actually need to be told that "Crystal Palace Football Club [are] commonly known as Crystal Palace FC [which they aren't] or simply Crystal Palace". It's all in the infobox. Number 57 15:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Per some examples above, where the common name for a team is so different to the given name of the club, I could see the introduction of second or fourth names. However, I am struggling to think of an instance with a British team (I want to say perhaps Milton Keynes Dons as they are commonly known as M.K Dons). Likely candidates would be those that are ex Soviet, so for instance CSKA would almost certainly have the full name and abbreviated. Same for those Scandinavian teams that are often xx00 alphanumeric combos's.

When it comes to US teams, we don't for instance in the NFL say "The Atlanta Falcons, commonly known as the Falcons" because it's patently obvious what any reference to the Falcons thereafter is going to be. The same applies for NHL (Senators), NBA (Lakers), and MLB (Redsox) for example, where each team is indelibly associated with the "short name".

By same token, explaining why a team is referred to in the article as "City" or "Athletico" is overkill. It should be self evident. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Koncorde, I haven't argued that the shorter commonly used names should be included for the sake of explaining why they're used further down in the article (although that's a bonus). My point is that I (and probably many others) other visit clubs Wikipages to find out what are the most common ways of properly referring to them. This info is often sorely missing. Aikclaes (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Glancing at the three football encyclopedias that I have to hand, none of them say anything about alternate names (although they often have redirects from other entries to their main articles when an alternative name is looked for). You asked for an opinion on what you were doing, you have your replies. The practice and consensus has for a long time been not to condense or repeat club names unless there is a significant difference between the official club name and the commonly used. By significant we are talking wholesale differences. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Number 57 Your statement they are not commonly known as Crystal Palace FC is bold. However, it took me seconds to find the following. On the club's official Facebook account [[8]] they write "Welcome to the official Crystal Palace FC Facebook page. And on the club's official website [[9]], all page titles say "Crystal Palace FC", and the header on all pages is "CRYSTAL PALACE F.C.". In addition, the club uses "Crystal Palace F.C." as the name for their official Twitter account [[10]]. These aren't exactly obscure sources. And you claim this info is "all in the infobox". It's not. Aikclaes (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If you were familiar with English football, you'd know it's an obvious statement; all the things you are pointing to are titles of pages – they would very rarely be called "Crystal Palace FC" in text written about them or in speech, so they aren't commonly known as such. They are commonly referred to as "Crystal Palace" or sometimes just "Palace". See, for example, how the BBC Sport website refers to them. Number 57 18:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Of course their official pages say that... and yes, the page name, name above infobox, full name within infobox etc, the narrative and usage, and even the option to include nicknames is all there. If it is missing, it should be added to the infobox. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Template switch

Hi, I cannot see any recent agreement to switch over to using {{fs_player2}} from {{fs_player}} which leaves us with a much longer squad list in articles and reorders the columns. Has there been any such recent agreement? Changes such as this is what brought up the question. Keith D (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. – PeeJay 13:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

How do I submit an article for peer review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are instructions available at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines. Kosack (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Honours (again? Surprise)

This time, I do not come here to discuss runner-ups "yes" or "no" as I've grown tired of the lack of consensus, I choose yes (with refs of course) and that's the way I will edit.

However, there is a consensus not to add numbers to the section, is there not? User:Davefelmer added them in Gorka Iraizoz, calling the display of said department a MESS when played has only 5/6 accolades in his "cabinet".

Attentively (note: even though I highlighted his name here, said fellow user has been notified of this thread) --Quite A Character (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no established or set format. What is notable / an honour for one player is likely not particularly honourable elsewhere. Generally speaking, receiving a medal is an honour. Placing runner up in-line with wins is a little odd but I have seen it done. Adding a number after a win is generally done when there is more than 1 of such a title. It isn't a pre-requisite but can be handy. However, I don't think I have seen anyone resolve what happens if a player was to win the same competition with different teams. I'm sure it has been done though. Koncorde (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for women's taskforce to become separate WikiProject

There is a proposal for the Women's football taskforce to become a separate WikiProject, seemingly primarily aimed at amending the notability criteria for female footballers. Comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 08:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add words into people's mouths Number 57. The question was propped by the linked Op-ed saying taskforces are on their way out as is. The difference in notability criteria is one consideration among the rest. Another one is exactly this: independence from the all-reaching hand of WP:FOOTBALL owners. The discussion was opened to get WOSO members' thoughts. --SuperJew (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that you said "If a change to a WikiProject indeed give us freer reign regarding women footballer notability criteria, I completely support it for that reason only", I'm hardly having to put words in your mouth. Part of the project splitting off is relevant to the wider project given a whole range of issues, including oversight of manuals of styles, templates, infoboxes etc. Number 57 08:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That is my personal opinion for supporting, not the proposal's reasoning. I hope you can tell the difference. --SuperJew (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the notability guidelines for women's football is clearly listed as the number one pro for starting a new wikiproject. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

FPL-relevancy

The following is a c&p of what's been left on my user talk page. Please tell us again how WP:FOOTY serves editors working on articles related to women's football. Input is being requested here. Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you added the text including "9-time winners and 4-time runners-up in the 15 editions of the UEFA Women's Champions League" for the Frauen-Bundesliga entry at WP:FPL? I don't really see the relevance to the subject of the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been updated. Could you please explain your desire to delete it + my subsequent edits at WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, explanatory notes will elaborate on the scope of professionalism in a particular league, like the the ones you added for the Italian and English top flights. This makes it clear, even to the uninitiated reader, why the leagues are not considered fully pro. The note you've added for the Frauen-Bundesliga does none of these things. The fact that there is more money in this league than in other European leagues doesn't change the fact that the league is still semi-pro and by itself this fact is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions about the other leagues in question. Including it makes it sort of look like the league is listed in the wrong place. I could easily see someone misinterpreting that as an assertion of full professionalism. The success of German clubs in European football has no direct bearing on professionalism, and so does not belong in this list. As such, I have removed it again, putting both of us at three reverts on the day. Remove it again and I will right you up for edit-warring. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To also let you know i have removed the links to the list of women's top level leagues. Since they don't discuss professionalism in any way they are not really relevant and potentially misleading. I have also removed your addition of the Mexican league to the list of fully pro women's leagues. Whilst in my mind I am relatively happy to see it added based on the source you have provided, I think it is wise to take it to the talk page and obtain a consensus first given this is a page widely relied upon as support to a notability guideline rather than make a unilateral addition. Fenix down (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You've proven the need for WP:WOSO quite clearly. Hmlarson (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hello. Can a willing editor please review the edit requests over at three different articles?

• A semi-protected request at Talk:Alexis Sánchez done Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• A semi-protected request at Talk:Mesut Özil done Struway2 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• A conflict of interest request at Talk:Liam Davis (footballer)

Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

List of most expensive association football transfers

Please see talk page for multiple issue need to be discussed. Matthew_hk tc 07:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Link talk:List of most expensive association football transfers. ClubOranje^T 09:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2014–15 Serie A (women's football)

I am not familiar the code, how to remove the usage of template:Fb team XYZ in the table? Matthew_hk tc 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what to do? Do not see "XYZ"... Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

i mean the templates such as template:Fb team AGSM Verona are redundant or not? Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thought you mean in the standings table... -.- Not sure about the templates. Kante4 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Iñigo Martínez

Can someone with rollback please resolve the bile that has appeared on the article, and maybe consider a parge protection until his future is resolved? Crowsus (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a week, to much unsourced disruptive editing going on at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

One-member categories

I'm just having a look at Category:Footballers in England by club and I've noticed there's a hell of a lot of categories with only one member. Does anyone know of any Wikipedia policy that says categories should have a minimum number of members? – PeeJay 11:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be more a convention than a policy. As in not to create a new category for something which will have only 1 page. In this case though because it is part of a series (and also most of them have the potential to grow) I would think it's fine for consistency. --SuperJew (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A lot of them are for non-League clubs and will be underfilled, as many ex-pros' non-league careers are woefully incomplete (and often even when they are relatively complete, they have often not been added to the categories). As SuperJew says, they are all likely to have the potential to grow, some of them quite significantly (I think for some of the ones I created, I was immediately able to add 5-10 players too). There are shedloads of players with categories missing that were picked up in a bot run here. Number 57 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy, as SJ says it's common sense. If there's genuine scope for expansion then it's fine to have just 1. GiantSnowman 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

League season notability (fourth/fifth divisions)

Are those "MNZ" leagues, which are Slovenian 4th and 5th level divisions and are found in the following categories (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) notable, or should they be mass deleted? Snowflake91 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like regional (county?) level competitions. Would be like having season articles for each Glasgow Cup. Delete. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Player notability - FA Cup

I know that notability for players in the English game currently goes with the general rule that players must have played in the Football League, but I was wondering whether this was fair on some Victoria era players who played before the League was formed.

Would it be possible to change the notability guidelines to recognise the FA Cup as the senior competition in England before 1889?

There are many players who played in FA Cup finals who, under the current guidelines, would not be deemed notable, yet there are hundreds of articles concerning players who have played in less than a handful of lower division Football League games.

Kivo (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Football didn't originate at the commencement of the Football League. Prior to that, an appearance in an F.A. Cup final would be the height of a man's career (unless he went on to become notable in another sphere). To me, therefore, it is obvious that someone like Alexander Tod (who scored for Old Carthusians in the 1881 FA Cup Final was as notable then (in 1881) as is Olufela Olomola whose career to date consists of one substitute appearance for Southampton in the EFL Cup. 77.130.196.91 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The best option is simply to rely on GNG. Drawing the line prior to 1888 would be very difficult. Number 57 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Playing from FA cup first round proper is covered by #4 of NFOOTY. Shouldn't that also cover the vic era players? Govvy (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Er, there are only two clauses in WP:NFOOTY... Do you mean WP:FOOTYN? This is no longer in place as a guideline for players. Number 57 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

O, never noticed it changed, :/ Is that what the bottom conversation is about? hmm, I must of missed the change. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it happened a long time ago. Number 57 16:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Rabiola

Just added some more refs to this player's article. However, i cannot make anything of the stuff present in source #3, why those odd italics even in the date and accessdate fields? Can someone fix it, please?

Attentively, many thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: I removed an extra set of italic marks from the title parameter that were causing the italics for the date and accessdate parameters. Please let me know if this was what you were looking to remove. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Matt O'Riley

Could an Admin please restore Matt O'Riley, he made his Fulham debut in the EFL Cup tonight. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Done. Number 57 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Mauritania's flag

Mauritania changed its flag last Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.249.73.206 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says this is the case before making the change again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. I just saw the change today. But still, it's easier if you let a registered user make this change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved from my own Talk page. Last Sunday, Mauritania changed its flag from the flag it used since 1959. Thanks to anyone that makes this change on affected articles. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification for Club Names in Infobox

I would like some clarification regarding naming conventions for clubs that have changed their names during the course of a club's history. This is a relatively common practice in Major League Soccer, and I have noticed that for most players the name used in the infobox is the one used during a player's stay. The specific example I have is Kei Kamara, who played for Columbus Crew SC both when it was called "Columbus Crew SC" and when it was called "Columbus Crew." The same is true for teams such as FC Dallas rather than Dallas Burn, Sporting Kansas City rather than Kansas City Wizards, and San Jose Earthquakes rather than San Jose Clash, just for a few examples.

I do not want to get into an edit war about this. I believe that the page should accurately reflect the time period the player played at the club, and the proper name at the time. See the edits on Gastón Sauro's page for what I'm talking about. I don't consider the edits unconstructive, especially since this isn't a matter of "compressing" the team's name. This is a matter of using the correct name and not an older out-of-date name. Is there some guideline that I have missed in this regard? Jay eyem (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about any official guideline, but I've always known it as you say; team name during the time of the player's spell. E.g. Tim Howard with the MetroStars (now New York Red Bulls). R96Skinner (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If during all the time the player was at the club, the club was under one name, I would definitely say that should be the name in the infobox. If the player was there during the time of the change, the name displayed should be the updated name with a note saying the club was formerly known by it's old name (for example Massimo Murdocca who was at both Queensland Roar when they changed to Brisbane Roar and at Melbourne Heart when they changed to Melbourne City). --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, regarding the specific example of Kei Kamara, would that be done correctly? The first time he played at the club, it was called A. The second time he played at the club, it was called B. He was not there during the transition, so the different names are reflected in his infobox. Jay eyem (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems right to me. Though in this specific case I'm not sure if there's a real difference between "Columbus Crew" and "Columbus Crew SC" (isn't one just the condensed more popular written version?), but that's a different discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, that is a different discussion. I am of the understanding that, since there was a name change, it should be reflected as such. Also, "Crew SC" has become a more common colloquial way of referring to the team since the name change (I don't really have a source to back that up, though). Thank you for the feedback. Jay eyem (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on whether it's really a name change. We wouldn't reflect Leeds United A.F.C. becoming Leeds United F.C. because they'd simply be referred to as "Leeds United"; same for Wrexham who have gone from A.F.C. to F.C. and back again. Number 57 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, and that may be where part of the confusion is. The club used to be just "Columbus Crew" but since the name change to "Columbus Crew SC" it has become more common to simply refer to the club as "Crew SC." Again, I don't have a source for that, but your insight was important. Jay eyem (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Football stadium address in infoboxes

I was wondering why we don't put the full address and postcode in the infoboxes on stadium pages, shouldn't we be doing that? Govvy (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Cuneo Femminile to Juventus F.C. (women) is wrong

These two clubs are de iure different sides according to this Lega Nazionale Dilettanti (Italy women's football governing body) document (Juventus women has matricola 947228). Also, its name will be "Juventus Women Football Club" according the club's website.--181.67.58.83 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they just sold the licence, no players even moved as far as I see. I started an article instead of the redirect. -Koppapa (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Andre Gray

Please could an admin protect Andre Gray, the article is subject to continuing disruptive editing and vandalism. Many thanks. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael John Weir

Is this footballer notable? 77.130.193.21 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

12 appearances in the Cypriot top flight would say yes. Shouldn't he be Michael Weir (footballer)? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OK - can someone move the article? Thanks. 77.130.193.21 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Gastón Sauro Edit Warring

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I am trying to avoid an edit war. I've already been threatened by some user that I assume is an admin (GiantSnowman) of having editing privileges revoked, despite having addressed this issue under the "Clarification for Club Names in Infobox" section on this very page. He referenced me to Wikipedia:Piped link and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and given the argument that I made I don't believe that this is a violation. I don't want my editing privileges revoked for something that appears to be a consensus on this page. Will someone else please address this? Jay eyem (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What consensus? You have edit warred, violated WP:BRD, and not explained your edits other than to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have directed you to WP:PIPING - it's why we display links as [[Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United]] and not [[Manchester United F.C.]]. GiantSnowman 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I directed you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Clarification_for_Club_Names_in_Infobox on this very page, and explained why they are different. Maybe you should read that first. And threatening to revoke my editing privileges without addressing that first reeks of an abuse of power. Jay eyem (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And in fact, I might argue that YOU violated [[WP:BRD]] in that exact manner by failing to address the consensus reached here regarding the proper use of "Columbus Crew SC" rather than "Columbus Crew" before reverting MY edits. Especially given that you reverted MY edits without discussing them on that talk page first. You have both ignored the articles talk page AND this talk page. If you believe that I have edit warred, then you CERTAINLY have edit warred. Jay eyem (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you link to a section on this page (which doesn't even have the consensus you are trying to claim!) GiantSnowman 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no dissenting opinion, there was an agreed upon understanding how "Columbus Crew" and "Columbus Crew SC" should be differentiated (See the comment made by SuperJew), and the entire process was done right here on this page yesterday. I don't know what your definition of consensus is, but if you wanted to voice a dissenting opinion, you should have done so first. Jay eyem (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I said that they should be differentiated if the name of the club is different in different sessions the player played (and brought examples of Queensland Roar becoming Brisbane Roar and Melbourne Heart becoming Melbourne City. Regarding Columbus Crew/Columbus Crew SC I said in this specific case I'm not sure if there's a real difference between "Columbus Crew" and "Columbus Crew SC" (isn't one just the condensed more popular written version?), but that's a different discussion, so I didn't offer an opinion in either direction. Since this is the subject of this discussion, I'll say that in most cases I would pipelink club names to not display standard prefixes and suffixes (such as FC, SC, CF, FK), though not in specific cases such as Sydney FC (and Toronto FC seems to be a case like that too). But I'm really not too bothered about it in any case. If you think Columbus Crew is an exception, you should bring arguments about it specifically. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The "SC" in this case might be redundant IMO, one might refer to the team as "Sydney FC" / "Toronto FC", but in this case, they would just say "Columbus Crew". But it appears that all the other players have it listed as "Columbus Crew SC" in their infobox and so all might need to be changed. — Anakimi_lambaste   18:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's a discussion that I believe is worth having, but I'm not totally clear on where or how it would be appropriate to determine a consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, that was very helpful. I do believe that it should be an exception. Would that discussion be appropriate on this page? It seems like it might be more appropriate elsewhere e.g. Talk:Columbus Crew SC or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force. I will go to either one of those pages instead if that would be preferred. Jay eyem (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And you're right, I should have introduced that discussion first, regarding a consensus on the proper name with specific arguments. I apologize for the inconvenience any of this is causing. Jay eyem (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO any of those pages (here/Columbus Crew/US&Can task force) is appropriate, though here it would get the most exposure. --SuperJew (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but is there a list of exceptions that I might be able to reference? That would help with my whole understanding of this issue. Jay eyem (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Columbus Crew" vs. "Columbus Crew SC" naming convention

I have started a conversation for the naming convention for how Columbus Crew SC should be referred to in infoboxes and articles for players 2015 onward at Talk:Columbus Crew SC. I would appreciate any input from this community regarding what the consensus should be. Jay eyem (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

League all-time standings tables

Yay or nay? I say nay (and I'm sure we've had consensus on this on the past), they are WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few reliable publications produce "all-time stats" (I've seen them on RSSSF) so I wouldn't say they are WP:OR (and since they are simply a matter of adding up existing tables, I'd say they fall under routine calculations). However, whether they are WP:NOTSTATS is probably down to individual preference. I'm not bothered either way tbh; I personally don't find that they add anything to articles, but obviously others feel differently given how relatively widespread they are. Number 57 17:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't actively work on them and I feel they're a lot more work than they're worth, but I don't think it's enough of an issue to bother deleting them either. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What about Historical table of the Copa Sudamericana? GiantSnowman 15:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would find it a bit soul-destroying to make one of these. The German media is always very keen to publish the all-time Bundesliga table every year and I do find it quite interesting, and as long as the info has a source and is a reasonably famous competition, I think it would be reasonable to include it. With the Sudamericana table, the positive is it comes straight from a reliable source at RSSSF, but the only advantage of recreating it on a Wikipedia table is that it's sortable. The main thing for me is, should it not just be a section in the main tournament article rather than on its own? Can't really imagine anyone looking for that information specifically, or if they did, surely they'd be happy to find it on the Copa Sudamericana page?) Crowsus (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking resolution over usage of kit templates

There is a dispute concerning whether these templates should be used at Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round. If there are any interested editors, please come by and provide input. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruption at LA Galaxy

Hello. I'd like to request assistance at the LA Galaxy article, for various IPs, possibly a hopper, is persistently changing numbers of players without valid sources. Page is already on pending changes for this reason, and I want to wait a week from today to resubmit a request for protection. When I submitted yesterday, my request got declined for collateral damage. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. Walter Görlitz had me covered here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Vicente Rodríguez

I have never known Vicente to be known as anything other than Vicente, so surprised me to find his article is "Vicente Rodriguez". Couldn't see any prior discussion of this. It may be something to do with Vicente disambiguation page being so named, but even if the main article was "Vicente (Footballer)" it would be clearer and more appropriate? Yes / No? Koncorde (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A quick search finds another footballer simply known as Vincente, Vicente de Paula Neto. There is also a possibility for confusion with Vicente del Bosque, though probably not. Admittedly I do not know enough about the two Vincentes to say whether one or the other should have the article "Vicente (Footballer)", but without a more compelling argument making such a change seems more disadvantageous than advantageous. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an established practice for this sort of thing; i.e. Pelé vs Pelé (footballer, born 1978). I don't deny Paula Neto may be referred to as Vicente, but primacy would usually be given to the more notable player. Seems to have been added by this edit corroborated by Chinese sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Knowing nothing about the players I have no idea whether either one is more notable than the other. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Spain International with multiple sources > Chinese League Player. Will sort out. Koncorde (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Women's under-23 "Olympic" teams

I propose to remove every women's under-23 article. For example, Haiti women's national under-23 football team contains three sentences; the first two are completely nonsense. And the third one – I'm not sure. Maiō T. (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure some these articles need to exist since there are no major competitions for women's u-23 teams. For example, the women's competition in the Olympics has no age limit like the men's competition. Some of the articles may have enough sourced information to merit keeping the article. If there is any quality information in the other articles, they should be merged with the national team article instead of deleted. Equineducklings (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Why target women's teams alone? I'm seeing quite a few un- or single-referenced men's u23 articles. What Wikipedia guideline are you citing? Hmlarson (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The men's under-23 teams compete in the Olympics, due to the age restriction in that competition. No such restriction applies to the women at the Olympics. There are age-group competitions for women (under-19 and under-17 in Europe, for example), but not at under-23. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to single out women's articles. If there are women's or men's u-23 articles in poor condition, they should be improved if possible, or merged if appropriate. But proposing to remove every article of any particular type should be backed by a wiki quideline or other valid reason. Equineducklings (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the valid reason is that many of these teams may not actually exist; men's U23 teams only exist for the purpose of the Olympics, whereas women's teams for the Olympics have no age restrictions. Several random articles about Haiti's Olympic qualifying have been added to the article, but none of them actually confirm anything written in it. There are definitely some women's U23 teams (the one on England has references that confirm their existence) so there shouldn't be a blanket deletion, but I am not sure how widespread they are. I wonder whether Savvyjack23 (the article's creator) was aware that women's Olympic qualifying is not U23 squads? Number 57 21:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Olympics or no Olympics... doesn't really matter. All articles need referencing to reinforce WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noticing the content of the Haiti women's national under-23 football team and including a link for clarity. I agree that blanket deletion of all women's under-23 national team articles makes no sense. If there are discrepancies with content and/or references on any article, it should be reviewed and improved where necessary. It the topic is found to be invalid, then nominated for deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I take back my original proposal. Eight women's under-23 national teams really exist (or existed) – USA, Germany, England, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switzerland; they played on the Nordic Cup between 2007 and 2009. [11] But I still support the deletion of Haiti U23 team. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haiti women's national under-23 football team. Maiō T. (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

While there isn't a worldwide U23 competition, there are a number of countries which have regular U23 camps/competitions. The US has 1+ tournament/camp each year - see earlier this summer [12]. I'm pretty sure the US has also sometimes sent the U23 squad to play full internationals in tournaments, too - maybe the Pan Am Games, Cyprus Cup, etc? Canada sent a U23 squad (with two overage players) to the 2015 Pan Am Games, too. I would bet that some of these U23 teams you've found might not exist (especially the ones with few/no citations and Olympic references), but I think that there are more than just the 8 you listed above. That doesn't necessarily resolve notability, but I don't think a mass deletion is necessarily warranted, either. Cleancutkid (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Football in North America template

There is a "Football in North America" template, which works as (I assume) was intended on, for example, Football in the Dominican Republic. However, it gets messed up for the US and Canada: it links to the disambiguation page Football in the United States and then "Football in Canada" redirects to Canadian football. I think we're unable to edit the template directly because it comes from Template:North America topic? The template seems way more complicated than I can understand, and somebody posted about the issue on its talk page a couple months ago, but nobody has responded there, so I figured I'd bring it up here, though I have no clue what can be done.

One thing which doesn't fix the main issue but could help a bit (and is actually doable) would be to adjust the template title to say "association football in north america", as "football" is not specific enough for a significant chunk of the population of North America. Cleancutkid (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The solution seems to be using "association football" as a prefix instead of just "football". I went ahead and created {{Football in North America}}, similar to {{Football in Europe}}, {{Football in Africa}}, etc. Having a wrapper template helps keep the prefix centralised. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Real Madrid website unreliable for honours? Also Bale medal count?

I was looking at their website regarding Gareth Bale, for some reason they have him down for winning the league cup at Spurs, but as far as I am aware he never got one, he didn't qualify for one. Also, they put him down for winning a 2016 super cup medal, but when I view the end of this youtube vid I don't see him anywhere with the rest of the squad in it. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable. They award Cristiano the 2016 UEFA Super Cup, though he wasn't even part of the 25-man squad submitted to UEFA. Bale however has the honour listed on his Wikipedia article because he was part of the 25-man squad, and he even has a picture with the medal, even though he caught the game sitting at home. — Anakimi_lambaste   22:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

O, lol, good find on the picture, but how does that qualify for wikipedia? Don't we have a set of rules for honour inclusion? Govvy (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it's not an independent source, but I think it's hard to ignore evidence like that, and would probably fall under WP:COMMON. — Anakimi_lambaste   22:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

hmm, well, it feels like they are giving out chocolates to kids at a kids party scenario so everyone has to have a medal. :/ Seems lame to me. Govvy (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the same, but we don't know that for sure. The squad-list holds good though. — Anakimi_lambaste   22:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm the above that Bale was included in the official squad for the 2016 Super Cup, hence he is considered to have won it despite not actually having travelled to Norway for the game. It sounds nonsensical, but it fits with the best criteria we've come up with to date for how to determine which players are considered to have which honours. – PeeJay 20:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention

It is quite consistent that in Italian football club A.C., F.C., U.S., A.S. were used (with dots) and a primary source listed a few more commonly known short form. However, regarding C.F. as a short form of Calcio Femminile, i don't really find secondary or even primary source to support it as an universal rule for the female football clubs as part of a common name. So, should clubs in Category:Women's football clubs in Italy with C.F. suffix or prefix, should move back to Calcio Femminile.? Matthew_hk tc 16:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

How are they usually referred in reliable sources? Hack (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Brescia and Cuneo use Brescia Calcio Femminile and Cuneo Calcio Femminile to call themselves (as primary sources) while FIGC-LND docunment use ACF Brescia Femminile and ASD Cuneo CF. Not looking into secondray source yet. Matthew_hk tc 13:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

new problem on S.S. Lazio Women 2015. Clearly S.S. Lazio Women 2015 and S.S. Lazio Calcio Femminile were two teams, the former takeover the Serie B place of S.S. Lazio Calcio Femminile with the latter plays in Serie C. Both team under the umbrella of S.S. Lazio sports club, but S.S. Lazio S.p.A. and S.S. Lazio Women 2015 were incorporated as a company and in ownership sense, separated from S.S. Lazio sports club (which also some sort incorporated that have a separate VAT number). It looks a mess to say which of which is successor. Matthew_hk tc 21:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable transfer rumours

On Alexandre Pato's page I have removed a bunch of non-notable trivia and transfer rumours in the Chelsea section which I am tired of seeing on English league player's pages.

"He turned down a move to Chinese side Tianjin Quanjian in which he would earn more than €1 million per month, as he sought a move back to Europe."

Transfer rumours are not notable.

"On 2 February, Chelsea confirmed that Pato would wear the number 11 shirt, previously worn by club legends Didier Drogba and Dennis Wise, for the remainder of the campaign."

Club legends according to whom? Why does this narrative belong in a biography?

"After a period of injury, he was first included in the first-team squad on 1 March, remaining unused in a 2–1 win at Norwich City."

Being included in the first team is not notable as has been discussed a thousand times before.

(User:Formulaonewiki) has gone ahead and reverted these changes, and I'm not interested in edit warring. Your guys thoughts?Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on all parts. And who cares who had the number before... Kante4 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree on the last part. Regarding the rumours and "turned down moves" it can give context, and I think it's fine to keep them if they appear in the sources. Also some shirt numbers have special meaning to some clubs and to some players, and if it appears in the sources I don't see a problem having them. --SuperJew (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the first bit - a player turning down a transfer is different to the transfer being merely rumoured. – PeeJay 14:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's covered by a reliable source, then mention it... GiantSnowman 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Footballer BLPs in Ancestry Categories

I should probably already know the answer, but I'm skeptical of the inclusion of many footballer BLPs in various categories for people of specific ancestries (e.g, Category:Argentine people of Italian descent) apparently based on nothing more than their surname. For example, I found Eduardo Filippini included in the Argentine people of Italian descent category without any sourcing (and the only sourcing I could find regarding his ancestry indicates Paraguayan, not Italian descent. There are many other examples of this, and while I understand that the surname Filippini has Italian origins, isn't is possible that surnames have been modified over the years or that there are instances where a person with such a surname might not have any Italian ancestry? Should we remove these BLPs from those categories until proper sourcing is available? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. – PeeJay 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Since arriving Europe with an Italian passport is easier (such as quota system in Ligue 1, Serie A and La Liga) it has plenty of media coverage that the player actually have Italian passport or not. Remove those merely by surname. Matthew_hk tc 19:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazed to find this discussion wasn't about "Albanian ancestry" that half the footballing population of Europe apparently have. Number 57 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

CNID Footballer of the Year

The CNID Footballer of the Year was awarded between 1970 to 2000, and was resurrected in 2006 as the Primeira Liga Footballer of the Year. However, RSSSF list winners in the interim (2001 to 2005). It appears to be a continuation of the CNID award, but at the same time, it could be a unofficial award like the European Golden Shoe was from 1991 to 1996. What do people think about this? APM (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jose Mourinho goals statistics

Please accept my editing in Mourinho's goal statistics because i'm adding the information. Thank you very much

PS: Zidane and Ancelotti goal statitics were used too in their article, so am i wrong if i'm just to added the goal statistics?. Thank you very much if you understanding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPL2007 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit seems fine to me, as long as it's backed up with refs I don't see any issue. Mattythewhite's reasoning of "Too much detail for managerial stats" and/or "just because something exists in one article doesn't mean it has to here" doesn't seem right. If it's an accepted part of Wikipedia, nothing is wrong with someone adding it in my opinion. R96Skinner (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

When has it ever been consensus to include GF and GA? It is very difficult to source for most managers, especially pre-1990s. If you check the featured lists that contain managerial statistics, and good articles for manager biographies, you should find most do not include this level of detail. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Never said there had been, but nor has there been vice-versa (please correct me if I'm mistaken). I get what you're saying, but it just seems to me that to say don't add something because some articles can't include it too is wrong. For example, most managers from non-major leagues can't include managerial stats at all due to lack of solid sources, so by this logic we shouldn't include managerial stats anywhere else? R96Skinner (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing for consistency and that the encyclopaedia need not include too much statistical data. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Significant Vandalism

There appears to be a significant amount of vandalism by Westcrown66 at the page Matt Knowles that's apparently been going on for a couple of weeks, and I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. Could somebody please look into this? Jay eyem (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the edits it appears they have all been reverted and his article is back to normal. User has been warned as well about vandalism in the article. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello there. Please I ask you to intervene at Freddie Veseli because Im going unfortunely through an edit wat with another user about stats. format. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason why your edit was reverted is because you are not following community guidelines for career stats tables. Division names are repeated rather than spanned across multiple rows to aid with accessibility per WP:FOOTY/Players#Career statistics and should not be linked more than once per WP:OVERLINK. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see articles like Cristiano Ronaldo having the division listed just once because he will only ever play top-flight football, but Empoli have just been relegated out of Serie A so it looks inconsistent to have his spells at other clubs with the division listed only once. It isn't a big deal but you're changing the article and reverting me to go against the guidelines.--EchetusXe 13:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for transfers,

I was wondering if we could extend this template to also say something along the lines, please don't update the article until transfer is fully complete, i.e medical and work permits have been completed etc. Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. R96Skinner (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well, but you might want to coordinate this with some of the other team sport related WikiProjects. The concept of a transfer is of course not unique to football after all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal life section

Hi all, just a quick one. Should the Personal Life section fall before or after the Career stats and Honours sections? I'm inclined to put it after so as to separate football from personal but pages seem to vary. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be after to me. Kante4 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am agree with Kante4: personal life after honours and stats. And only if there is an important fact (e.g., being the son of NBA Hall of Fame member), the possibility of adding it at the start of the article. Asturkian (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The personal life section should be above career stats and honours per WP:FOOTY/Players. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and I would suggest that WP:FOOTY/Players is probably wrong. I agree with Kante4. – PeeJay 12:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It should go before the stats and honours as per the guide. It would look bizarre going after the honours.--EchetusXe 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You and LTFC95 have both cited WP:FOOTY/Players, but have we considered why the guide is structured thus? Maybe the guide needs changing. – PeeJay 21:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with EchetusXe. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee, who agrees with EchetusXe who appears to agree with LTFC who agrees with WP:FOOTY/PLAYERS which is the layout used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community. I think it naturally follows there as part of the main prose whereas the stats and honours tend to be more table/list like and break the page. Anything after that always seems like an postscript to me and I barely look at it when learning about a subject. ClubOranje^T 06:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are there any more thoughts on this? The view seems to be divided. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ClubOranje. We're writing biographies, and the subject's personal life is integral to their biography and hence to the prose content. If there's enough to have a separate section, it should come either directly after the football prose, i.e. before the listy stuff, or before it, straight after the lead section. If there isn't enough to justify a separate section, it should be incorporated (sensibly) into the main prose: what's really silly is when editors break off a personal section just for something like Smith was born in Smithville. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As per Struway above. I am not a big fan of "personal life" sections. They are not often notable additions. In any case when they do exist they go with the main biographical information and preceding any list info. Koncorde (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Scotland national amateur football team

If a player has played for Scotland National Amateur football team do they pass Nfooty or not? I noticed User:Shaztastic adding speedy deletion to a number of the players with stub articles. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, just two, Donald McLean (footballer) and Willie McLanachan. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No they don't. Only an appearance for the senior team or the Olympic team (at the Olympics) qualify an international player under WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, McLean possibly qualifies as Queen's Park were in the top division for two seasons during his time there (1956–1958). Number 57 12:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

yes only two - which i tried to expand and couldn't - and marked because the don't meet WP:NFOOTY if you can expand the stubs, that would be great Shaztastic (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure as it says Queens Park is an Amateur team, did you look through those citations, I haven't bothered, besides I am off to Wembley in an hour anyway. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Both pass WP:NFOOTY: WP:FPL lists the top two Scottish divisions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: To clarify, it lists the current versions of the top two divisions. The second division would definitely not have been fully-pro prior to the 1970s as there were only two divisions then, with most of the teams in the second division being those that are currently in League One and League Two (see e.g. 1969–70 Scottish Football League). Number 57 12:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So, given it's always included the Scottish second tier, with the proviso that it wasn't necessarily true, how are the ignorant among us supposed to tell what it actually means? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I assumed that anyone editing Scottish football articles would be aware of the league's history. At the time I don't think we were quite as precise as we are today (several leagues added since have had the dates included). Number 57 13:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another illustration of how daft the FPL thing is, then... We don't do much to help people contribute to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", do we? McLean definitely played in Division One, anyway, a source in the article says so. FWIW, I only got involved to remove the inappropriate {{db-a7}}s. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over metres or centimetres

May I seek the advice from the wiki community please? Simple question of 'metres' or 'centimetres', no gray area there I believe. I have a dispute over whether to use 'metres' or 'centimetres' as the 'main' height in Michael Keane's [13] inbox. An user insisted on a number of occasions that we should follow the source [14] which states 191cm and reverted the editing (from 1.91m to 191cm). I disagree I think it should be stated as 1.91m because it makes sense for teams to be uniform in their display of height for the sake of consistency. While 'metres' and 'centimetres' are the same measurement but meters has been used universally in football players' inboxes and pages. Therefore, I would say we should use 'meters' as the 'main' height instead of 'centimetres'. Cheers. Davekgoodnight (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Up until you changed it yesterday, the infobox height was actually in feet and inches, which is what the Manual of Style says is appropriate for personal heights in non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom. I'd suggest you put it back to feet and inches. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue had been discussed.[15]There is no consensus on this issue then. Ok. Davekgoodnight (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

MoS is consensus. There's certainly no justification either at WP:MOS or at that discussion you linked to for changing away from longstanding and MoS-compliant use of units just because you feel like it, regardless of which format you change to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I speak from a position where I don't know if there are any specific guidelines or consensus as to m or cm, but I don't think I've ever seen cm used on a footballer's page before. It's normally the height in metres with the inch conversion in brackets alongside. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the source used on Michael Keane's page used centimetres, so my argument is that there's no need to convert that to metres. Just because you haven't seen it on a footballer's article before doesn't mean there aren't articles that use centimetres, and it also doesn't mean it's wrong to leave it as centimetres if that's what the source uses. – PeeJay 18:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How a source presents information is not, and never has been, relevant to how we present information according to the MOS. If you have ever been told or led to believe that it was in some way significant, then you were misled. Kahastok talk 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's true, fair enough, but I have yet to see any suggestion at WP:MOS that it is wrong to use centimetres as the unit for measuring human height. – PeeJay 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is correct to use whatever SI units are deemed appropriate by consensus, except in non-scientific topics related to the UK or US such as this one. Absent a topic- or article-specific reason for some other system, the MOS calls for feet and inches first. That's what the article did before this weekend, and note that there are general sanctions in force on this topic that prevent mass-changes to units. Kahastok talk 19:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Men's Football in West Yorkshire

Does anyone else think this is necessary, given the existence of Category:Football in West Yorkshire? I was going to TfD it, but thought I'd check others' views first. Cheers, Number 57 11:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Men's Football in the West Midlands has appeared now too. Number 57 12:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my talk page, Template:Football in London, Template:Football in Greater Manchester, and Template:Football in South Yorkshire already exist, the first two dealing with only men's football; I am just doing the same thing for those clubs in the counties of West Yorkshire and the West Midlands. If those two templates should be deleted, so should the three here be as well for consistency. Kerl126 (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the incorrect capitalisation in the titles shown in the templates ("Football" is not a proper noun and therefore does not need a capital letter when preceded by another word). Don't know if the template titles need amending or if that doesn't really matter..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Carlitos (Spanish footballer)

There is (was, as i have stopped since) an edit war going on regarding this player's youth years (infobox). User:Oleola has confided they feel the information present in this newspaper article (please see here http://www.diarioinformacion.com/deportes/2012/11/16/carlitos-lopez-busca-goles-rusia/1315390.html) stems from WP and thus may not be reliable. Not sure as to why they reason like that, however, and they also encourage me as well as User:MYS77 to pay more attention to WP:VERIFY, and they are not wrong there :)

Now, for my two cents: WP:VERIFY is a site guideline that needs to be embraced, could not agree more. However, WP:BOLD is also one (of less power, but still), no? Reading this bit ("Empezó en 1998 en el Alicante, para pasar después al Hércules, conjunto en el que permaneció cuatro años. También pasó por el Torrellano, en dos etapas, con un intervalo fuera de la provincia, en el que perteneció al Murcia.", translated to "Started in 1998 in Alicante, moving then to Hércules, an outfit where he remained four years. He also spent time at Torrellano, two spells, this being interspersed with time outside the province, when he belonged to Murcia"), one can easily conclude that User:El rayo que no cesa – SPANISH like the subject – knew his stuff and embraced WP:BOLD when they, in October 2012, added the youth years that have since been removed (diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlitos_%28Spanish_footballer%29&type=revision&diff=518196479&oldid=515888895). Again, please note that i am not saying Mr. Rayo is a reliable source (no user here is per se, i know that), i am only referring to WP:B-O-L-D, please accept my apologies if i am making a mess of this guideline in particular.

Oleola removed said youth years from the infobox and also added a new club to the section, Elche CF. However, MYS77 cleverly notes in Oleola's page, during our exchanges regarding this issue, "that Elche and Torrellano had a partnership back in that time. So if the guy is listed in Elche's website, he could be playing for Torrellano instead".

Inputs please, and again the community has my utter promise that i will not revert/remove anything from the article regarding this bit. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already tried to work in a manner that Oleola collaborate with us, but for him, that does not seem the case: firstly, he reverted the youth years because it was "unreferenced". Then, I go out and find a reliable reference with all those years listed, and what does he do? Another revert!

I don't know if the guy has taken it personally because of another bits and pieces at Kiko Ramírez, but if he did, then I'd suggest him to drop it. Now, I'll stay out of the article (as QAC), so any other contributors can take a look and clarify our problems. MYS77 ^✉ 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, years are not listed in this source, only clubs are listed. And in the way that suggest that this source based on Wikipedia bio (style of writing and missing Elche). Anyway these clubs are still listed on Wikipedia article per this source. So don't lie that I'm reverting you, I'm just removing unsourced content. You don't follow WP:VERIFY. You've got serious problem with sourcing the information you're adding into the articles. You're adding the sources that only partially covers the information you put into the articles. This is the same style of contribution as User:Zombie433, who was banned for such actions.--Oleola (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

For the point of circular-referencing, the English version of the article was created on 3 October 2012 and updated on 16 October, with no citation on youth clubs, it may have a possibility of circular-referencing (and the dead link citation had not much info) Since El rayo que no cesa was stale since 2015, it should have more citation to support the youth clubs. May be finding webpage archive of the youth club? Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Footballer-unknown-status

anyone still using this template? Cleanup those tagged for years and nominate the template for deletion? Matthew_hk tc 19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not seen that for a few years! Yes, probably not something we should be using any more. Jellyman (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

also, anyone actually monitoring Category:Football articles needing attention? Matthew_hk tc 20:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

According to [16], it has about 100 transclusions in articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

UEFA Men's Player of the Year Award vs. UEFA Best Player in Europe Award

According to this link (Buffon, Messi and Ronaldo on Player of the Year shortlist), Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, and Gianluigi Buffon have been listed as the three finalists for what is now being called the "UEFA Men's Player of the Year Award", rather than the "UEFA Best Player in Europe Award". It seems to be the same award (just with the name of the Men's award reflecting the "UEFA Best Women's Player in Europe Award"), with the same format with a top 10 being announced followed by the three finalists and the winner being announced ahead of the 2017 UEFA Super Cup, so I was wondering if the title of the page should be changed, or should a new page be made? Thoughts? Thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume a rename, but I'm not sure at all. R96Skinner (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably a rename. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Any admins about

please could they see if there's anything useful in the previously deleted versions of Cohen Bramall worth merging into the page history of the new creation. thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

History restored. GiantSnowman 21:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

'Retired nationality' v 'nationality retired'

What is better - 'John Smith is an English retired footballer' or 'John Smith is a retired English footballer'. I say the former as the latter implies that a player has retired from their nationality as well as their profession... GiantSnowman 17:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. First option for me. Kante4 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with first option for reasons that GiantSnowman mentioned. I think the cricket project discussed this a while back and came to the same conclusion as GiantSnowman. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

yeah, first option. Crowsus (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely the former. I used to use the latter without thinking, once you read it through it only really makes sense with the first option. R96Skinner (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"English former footballer" sounds more natural than "English retired footballer". But definitely nationality first. Mr Smith is still English. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "English former footballer" too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I always go for "English former professional footballer" to make it clear they weren't just playing for fun! Number 57 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, definitely "former" and definitely the former. – PeeJay 18:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As per Number 57. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

'Retired nationality' is linguistically more elegant and also far more common. Just compare "retired English footballer" -wikipedia vs "English retired footballer" -wikipedia on google and you have 105.000 vs 5.800 results. Meaning 'Retired nationality' is twentyfold more common than 'nationality retired'. DrunkenGerman (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is why using the word "former" instead of "retired" is better. – PeeJay 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't like 'former' when it's used without 'professional'. 'Retired' emphasizes that somebody has done something for a professional reason and is so very specific, while 'former' alone is actually incorrect as most players continue exercising the sport for fun. So I would say there is only a choice between 'Retired nationality' or 'nationality former professional'. I would go for number one, since it's linguistically elegant, precise and concise. DrunkenGerman (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the first option, but as suggested above, I would say "English former professional footballer" is better. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Sail

I am creating a page for Oliver Sail as realised he doesn't have one. Not sure if you will allow the page at this stage as I'm not sure if he meets WP:FOOTY yet until he gets a start either for the All Whites or the Nix (He did play for the All Whites in a couple of friendlies and been on the bench for the Nix). Anyway, just wanted to make sure the page is on the right track for when it will be allowed, so any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 03:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. How did he manage to get a national team call-up so young? Hack (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Because our National manager has been handing out shirts like lollies since he signed on. We also take three keepers to everything and he is third on that list, I think he’s in mind with NZ Football as the future first team keeper. Also until he gets that start with Nix, I’m happy for him to sit in my drafts, but is what I’ve written ok for a page? NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 08:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good so far: I made some minor tweaks to punc. (goes before refs) etc. Eagleash (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm proposing a change to WP:NFOOTY to improve clarity. I've added continental club competitions such as Champions League per Fenix down's suggestions elsewhere: 1, 2 and made slight re-wording changes for clarity. As Fenix down also mentioned (and I agree), some changes are needed in the intro on WP:FPL for clarity, but I thought we'd start here. Hmlarson (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they:

1. Played for or managed a senior national team in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA,[17] in a senior international match regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA or compete at the Olympic Games.
2. Played or managed in a top-tier continental club competition such as Champions League, Women’s Champions League.
3. Played or managed in a competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WP: Football for more information.

Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Other players must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Survey

• Support per nom - and open to revisions, as needed. Hmlarson (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in its current form. The Champions League addition is far too open. Players in the OFC Champions League are not notable, nor are many of those in the qualifying for the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Women's Champions League. If Champions league players are going to be given notability, then it's probably going to have to be a select few, e.g. group stages of the UEFA Champions League, but drawing the line is not going to be particularly easy. Number 57 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - in principle. Would agree with number 57 that the OFC Champions league should be excluded as too minor and would also want to restrict to non qualifying rounds. But think at the bare minimum moving things forward to include men's and women's UEFA champions league competition proper would add very few new players to the men's side of things but would go a long way towards recognising female players playing at the highest level of continental competition as presumed notable. Needs more fine tuning, i.e. what continental competitions could be included, but hope this is something that can be taken forward. Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - The idea of continental level football as an indicator of notability is not a bad idea in principle, it's part of the reason point 2 (3 in the proposed text) was expanded to include non-league competitive matches, but still need some work; the points Number 57 brought being the most obvious problems. We fairly consistently see articles on footballers deleted at AfD that don't meet WP:NFOOTY as currently written, but have continental level appearances, because they also don't meet the general notability guideline. For something to be a good SNG criteria, I would expect to see the exact opposite: a significant number of GNG-based keeps despite not meeting the SNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form. Appears to muddy waters rather than clarify inclusion criteria. Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Number 57's argument is entirely persuasive, and no evidence has been proffered to justify declaring every player who's played in any match of any Champions League presumptively notable. Ravenswing 03:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• His comment states "Oppose in its current form". Do you or he have a proposed revision? Hmlarson (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Goes a long way to be able to include more women who are playing at the highest level available to them. Also according to WP:NSPORT: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition which this proposal brings WP:NFOOTY more in line with. I think the understanding is that this refers only to the final stages of the competition (the tournament proper) and not the qualifying stages, and if a club from a small country like San Marino or Andorra makes it to the Round of 32, it will be widely covered in the news - look how much coverage Lincoln Red Imps got for beating Celtic in the 2nd qualifying round. --SuperJew (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The definition of "Major" would likely exclude many Women footballers as it currently stands just as much as any existing criteria. The NFOOTBALL standard actually disseminates notability to players who are, generally speaking, not particularly notable just because they played in the English Third Division in 1953. This effects most sporting categories though. This is not the correct solution. Koncorde (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

How is a top-tier continental club competition not major? I'd also say a top-tier league competition in a high-ranked country is a major competition. --SuperJew (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As footballer notability comes virtue of it being a spectator sport, I'd say a top-tier continental club competition isn't major if there isn't much spectator interest. The highest attendance in last year's OFC Champions league was 3,000, which puts it on a par with the FA Vase. Number 57 07:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This. The idea that we can back-door in women's competitions through the use of the term "Major" seems remarkably narrow in its objective. They should qualify for notability through a comprehensive and inclusive standard. Koncorde (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not back-dooring at all. Open front-dooring. The fact that you define "major" however you want so it fits your view that most women footballers shouldn't be notable is your issue. --SuperJew (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said whether they are notable or not, I haven't said what qualifies as major or not; only that "major" is a wishy washy term. However there is an effort being made by this suggestion to push this change in order to qualify a particular competition for notability, rather than its notability defining it's inclusion. I'm all for the Women's Champions League being included, just don't screw the guidelines while doing so. Koncorde (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57:I would argue that "notability" in an encyclopedia is tied to press coverage/retrospective analysis/etc far more than crowd size. College and even some high school American football games can out-draw some teams in soccer FPLs in the US (not to mention indoor sports, etc), but those players aren't presumed to be notable. Are the players/teams in the Indian Super League more notable than those in Ligue 1 and Serie A because of their higher average attendance? (see this list) Crowd size is probably a factor in notability, but not nearly the primary one (and, to my limited understanding, not the standard employed at AfD when notability is discussed). Cleancutkid (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the guidelines for footballer notability are already too lenient; adding more exceptions will only exacerbate the problem. BigDom (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't see how footballers whose highest achievement is playing in the qualifying rounds of a continental competition would ever meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jogurney: No one is talking about the qualifying rounds, but rather the competition proper. --SuperJew (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The current proposal makes no distinction and needs to be fixed. Furthermore, I see no reason to extend the SNG to cover semi-pro or amateur footballers who happened to make a single appearance in a continental competition like CONCACAF or UEFA Champions League. The SNG already includes footballers who participate in competitive matches between fully-pro clubs (which would include almost all of the matches beyond the qualifying stages anyway). In short, there is no need for this change and no reason to believe lowering the bar will improve Wikipedia. Jogurney (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

@Jogurney: Unfortunately, NFOOTY (as it is currently being interpreted) does not actually cover footballers who participate in competitive matches between fully-pro clubs, instead only if those fully-pro clubs are also in fully-pro leagues, which is part of why this has been proposed. The examples I run into are often women's clubs like 1. FFC Frankfurt, Lyon, Arsenal, and Barcelona, which are fully-professional clubs (I believe all of them are fully-pro, but I don't have sources in front of me) which play each other at a high level in Champions league (3 of the 4 have won it), but their national top-division leagues are only semi-pro.Cleancutkid (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has been interpreted to cover footballers who participate in cup matches between fully-pro clubs. That said, I remember creating Tanya Kalyvas after the 2004 Summer Olympics, and although it may be useful to have a complete set of articles on Olympic competitors, that footballer has received very limited coverage in reliable sources (e.g., the NY Times dedicated more coverage to her wedding than her entire football career). It is a cautionary tale for assuming that a footballer with just a handful of fully-pro club, international or Olympic appearances as their highest achievement may never meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the guidelines for footballers are already too restrictive. Confer notability on anyone with a squad number for a pro team and allow the encyclopaedia to grow.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comments - Question When did we strip out the notability of playing top level cup competitions out? And why are we not covering that anymore? Why did we strip the word domestic out? The old criteria we use to use was far better worded and more straight forward in my opinion, GNG is superseding NFOOTY as of right now due to poor clarity. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Comparing other sports notability guidelines to WP:NFOOTY (say WP:NHOCKEY and others for example) reinforces the need for this to be evaluated and updated. Hmlarson (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Egghead06 - NFOOTY is tighter than a midget's sock. Pretty soon, at this rate, nobody will pass it. Notability for football should start at the level of "player in a nationally recognised football league team", like AFC Ajax or Manchester United. In short, if they've worn a club shirt and played in a league match, as a first team player, they're in. Dane|Geld 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Egghead06. Linhart (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle, because we already have too many bios on not-really-notable sportspeople. However, point no. 1 is woefully ambiguous. What I think is trying to convey is "Played for or managed a senior national team in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA; in a senior international match regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA; or in the Olympic Games." But perhaps it means "... whether or not the teams are members of FIFA and whether or not they have played in the Olympic Games", though this seems a bit non-sequiturial. I agree with above suggestions that each qualification be broken out into its own line-item to avoid any [further] confusion. I prefer the clearer alternative proposal below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's fine as it is. It's not perfect, but there's a reason why the guidelines have stayed as they have for so long ie they work! If it ain't broken... GiantSnowman 21:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Number 57 - can you elaborate why there needs to be a line? Hmlarson (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, players from certain champions league competitions and those from stages of others are not going to be notable. Therfore if we do want to add appearances in CL competitions to the guideline, there is going to need to be a cutoff point to stop it being used to justify a player from, eg, S.P. Tre Penne or FC Santa Coloma being deemed 'notable'. Number 57 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Have you done a WP:GNG check for these players to determine they are not notable? I'm confused. Hmlarson (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have for AfD's from time to time. (See 1, 2, 3, 4 for some examples from over the years. It's not the same clubs but all of these are footballers who had played in Champions League qualifying for non-FPL clubs.) The early rounds of the Champions League do not generate much in the way of coverage beyond routine match reports and the like. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond that, that's not the way it works, Hmlarson. It's not up to those claiming a category of people aren't notable to prove that they're not. It's up to those who claim that they are to prove that they are. Ravenswing 03:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am a little concerned however that this might make the guideline more Europe and South American centric, as UEFA and CONMEBOL are the only confederations (as far as I know) that have continental competitions for women. --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that is a major issue at the moment, if as a continental federation you don't have a top level continental club competition then that probably says something about the level of notability of women's football in that confederation. Let's look for small changes first rather than wholesale. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Egghead06, DaneGeld, and Linhart: Those opposing since NFOOTY is already too restrictive in your opinion, why are you opposing? This proposal is aiming to make NFOOTY less restrictive. What would you propose instead? --SuperJew (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I just don't like the criteria, Now someone will be notable, just because he/she is from Andorra and playing for local club, which happens to play in qualifiing for some competition, but not someone who plays for the club on tha same or biger level, but happens to be located outside Andorra/San Marino. I would like to include athletes, who maybe never played in a fully profesional league, but they actauly played, loyaly making hundreds of caps in second level and became icons for local clubs and local communities.Linhart (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

Accepting the comments above that the initial proposal is too generous in terms of presuming notability, could we consider the following as a potential alternative to point 2:

I have left out the OFC and CONCACAF Champion League as well as the Copa Libertadores Femina as being insufficiently notable at a global level to allow presumption of notability for partaking players at this stage.

Looking at the number and location of teams that play in the competition proper, of these competitions, it would appear that this would only presume a small number of additional players from men's leagues to be notable, as most of these clubs come from already acknowledged FPLs (and those that don't come from leagues with a decent level of professionalism anyway) but would acknowledge the growth in popularity of women's football in Europe and would look to create some level of balance in this subject specific guideline (i.e. that it is reasonable to acknowledge the same presumption of notability to the top level of women's continental club competition in Europe as it is to the Ukrainian third tier). Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the CONCACAF Champions League should be in there too; its group stages have much larger average attendances (10,842 in 2015–16) than the knock-out phase of the UEFA Women's Champions League (3,675 in 2015–16) and at least half its competitors are from leagues known to be fully-professional (only one entrant was from a known non-FPL in 2015–16). Number 57 11:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Number 57 - Can you add some references to your attendance #'s? Would be good to see. Hmlarson (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the CONCACAF figures (actually I don't know why I said group stages above, I think it's for the entire tournament). I calculated the UEFA Champions League by averaging the attendances listed on the article. Number 57 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also just realised that in both cases it was the 2016–17 figures... Number 57 19:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you edit your original comment or post a new comment with these noted changes so we all understand what you're stating? Hmlarson (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestions for improving clarity This is a good start. I think the wording could be modified for clarity:

1. bullet #1: Why are there so many words to basically say played for a senior national team? It's confusing.
2. What is a "competition proper"? Clarify.
3. Bullet 3: the link to WP:FOOTY is embedded in the other link in current WP:NFOOTY (look at the code). Needs fixing.
4. The following should be added to the bottom (or you need to re-add what is in the current WP:NFOOTY which seems to target youth players when WP:GNG is applicable to all players/figures: "Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Other players must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG."

Hmlarson (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The "competition proper" comprises the rounds that come after the qualifying phase, such as the group stage of the Champions League onwards, or the First Round Proper of the FA Cup. – PeeJay 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A reference or link to wikipedia article or definition would be useful. Hmlarson (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect to point 1, it's worded that way because just saying senior national teams wouldn't cover the Men's Olympic tournament and could be misinterpreted as covering matches of non-FIFA representative teams, which generally don't receive much coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not very clear. Surely, we can make some minor tweaks for clarity. All of that does not need to be in one convoluted sentence. It sounds like it's been over-worked to the point of not making sense just to make sure a small segment is not included. Aren't Olympians already considered notable by WP:NOLYMPICS anyhow? Hmlarson (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that there's room for improvement. I was merely explaining how we got here. That being said I do think it's useful to call out the Olympics explicitly even if they are already covered in their own guideline to make it clear that it's an exception to the fact that youth football is not covered by the guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

How about splitting #1 up:

1. "Players who have played for their senior national team in any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA.[6]

2. Players who have played for their nation's "A" Representative Team, such as the men's under-23 national teams who play at the Olympics (see also WP:NOLYMPICS).

3. Managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA.[6]

If I'm missing something trying to be conveyed in #1 that I didn't include, let me know. "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." can't be proven true across the board and should be omitted. Hmlarson (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't cover non-FIFA members playing in continental championships, which is covered by NFOOTY currently, and part of the reason why it's so convoluted. I'd also like to move away from using the Tier 1 terminology explicitly. It's not a bad standard, but it's also not obvious to the uninformed reader what that actually means. I think it would be easier just to put the relevant parts of the Tier 1 requirements directly into our guideline. If we're doing bulleted lists for the continental level club competitions, might I suggest the following.

1. Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:

1. FIFA World Cup or FIFA Women's World Cup
2. FIFA Confederations Cup or (Women's equivalent if one exists)
3. A continental championship (i.e. UEFA European Championship, Copa América, CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup etc.)
4. Qualifying to any of the above
5. The Olympic Games
6. Any other official match, including friendlies, between the senior national teams of two FIFA members

Thoughts? Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is getting much clearer. Thanks. Can you:

1. add at least one link to a women's continental championship example
2. remove the qualifying line? this is covered by the last "any other official match" OR modify to "qualifying match for any of the above"
3. add link to friendly article: Exhibition game
4. "between the senior national teams of two FIFA members" reads differently than what I interpreted from the current guideline. Is that a guideline change or was it just not clear in the current wording? Hmlarson (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Explicitly calling out the two FIFA members requirement is what I meant by "[putting] the relevant parts of the Tier 1 requirements directly into our guideline." The whole point of referring to Tier 1 in the current guideline was to make it clear that low coverage matches of non-FIFA representative teams were not covered by the guideline. I don't think it does this particularly well, which is why I'd like to change the way we present that. Referring to friendlies the way I have is also why I called out qualifiers separately. Occasionally, non-FIFA members play in qualifying and even the finals of continental championships. Gibraltar played in qualifying to the last Euro, before they joined FIFA. French Guiana played in the Gold Cup earlier this year. Not having these covered would be a little strange, especially when evaluating the notability of players for the other team involved. I've made suggested cosmetic changes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you - and thanks for clarifying the intent of the guideline. From a grammatical POV, if you single out:

Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:

• Qualifying to any of the above
  

the wording can be improved slightly because the lead ends in "in any of the following". ... "in qualifying to?" vs in a qualifying match or in a qualifying tournament reads clearer - if that is the intent of the line. Hmlarson (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the wording per the suggestions above and tried to make the qualifying competition point a little clearer. Overall this does seem to be a much more specific guideline than we currently have. Welcome any further thoughts. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you re-add the following at the bottom? Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Other players must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reincluded the explanatory note regarding youth football and the requirement for debut. I've also removed what was meant to be placeholder text regarding a Women's equivalent to the Confed Cup, since no such tournament exists. (Correct me no this if I'm wrong). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the focus on youth players only? If you change it to "Other players must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG" (or something similar), it is more accurate. Hmlarson (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it's because we've had a particular problem in the past with editors creating articles on youth internationals and claiming that youth caps confer notability, so it's good to make it clear that this isn't the case. Number 57 17:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Did some of them meet WP:GNG or was that not discussed? Can you add a link to Football continental championships for "A continental championship" for clarity? Hmlarson (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

How about the addition of two words for clarity: "Youth and other players are not considered notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Hmlarson (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NCOLLATH might also be applicable. Hmlarson (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Any objections to me re-adding "Other players must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG"? Seems like any youth or **any** player/figure not included in this will need to meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines - we could include that as well. It should be noted that WP:SPORTCRIT also includes reference to players that "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Hmlarson (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "youth and other players" formulation is good, because that is fundamentally two different points, that youth football is not covered by NFOOTY and that footballers might still notable under other guidelines. My suggestion would be something along the lines of: "Youth football is not covered by this guideline. Footballers who do not meet the criteria above may still meet WP:GNG or other subject-specific notability guidelines." I don't think calling out other specific guidelines is all that useful. There are plenty of others that might apply and this could quickly degenerate into a game of let's name all the guidelines we can. On top of that, the most relevant ones aside from WP:GNG are all located on the same page as NFOOTY so it's not like finding them is going to be a problem. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I don't understand what the difference is in your eyes between youth footballers and other in view of this guideline. As it currently stands, no youth football is covered by the guideline so there is no need to specifically mention that it is not covered. The note in general about footballers not covered by the guideline being potentially notable by meeting other guidelines is useful to let users know that this is not the be-all and end-all say. --SuperJew (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The comment about youth football isn't about defining the scope of the guideline, but rather about dispelling a common misconception. Number57 brought this up above, but we fairly regularly get editors who are new to the deletion process claiming footballers are notable based on youth level caps. Given the prevalence of this misconception, it's useful to call this out explicitly, and separately from the fact that other notability guidelines might apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well then I think it would be more appropriate to list it under the specific point about international matches (last bullet of point 1 in this suggestion). Also, it should be written about youth teams and not about youth players. If a young player plays for the senior national team, they're presumed notable by that (for example Samantha Kerr made her debut at 15). --SuperJew (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, the guideline is quite clear notability is presumed only for players who have made senior international appearances. I don't think there is a need for a guideline to try to cover off every potential misunderstanding or cross reference every other part of NSPORT that might be relevant as it makes it too bloated. Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not about covering all possible misunderstandings, just the most common ones. To that end, note clarifying the requirement for debut and the non-coverage of youth level football have been part of this guideline for as long I can remember. Given that both of these issues still come regularly I see no good reason to remove them. Bloating certainly isn't one given that it's only two of them and we've never added to them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'm happy for you to reflect any changes in the gray box if you think they are beneficial. I'm not sure how much more discussion there is to be had here. Once that is done, we should probably ask for final comments and then take to NSPOT talk for wider input. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be fine with leaving the note unchanged. I don't really think the proposed additions are necessary. That being said, I won't oppose them if they're formulated in a way that doesn't make the existing note less clear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer this version, as more narrow and clearer than the original proposal. Support both proposals in principle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

footballbox collapsible Borders

Not a big issue but I notice a few articles using this without borders, this makes it quite tough to view when there is many results with the same results, green, red, yellow together, anyone discussed this before? Kyndigs (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Start of contract or opening of transfer window?

I've got a question regarding Sebastian Eriksson's infobox. On 22 December 2014, he signed a loan contract with IFK Göteborg that lasted until 30 June 2015. On 25 May 2015, he signed a permanent deal with club, and they stated that "From 1 July, he will be a permanent IFK Göteborg player". This is however a problem, because the Swedish transfer window opened on 15 July 2015. This creates a gap of 14 day, a gap in which Eriksson played two games. Should these two games be included in the loan spell (because the transfer window was yet to open) or in the permanent spell (because the contract hade been activated)? The latter alternative is the current one in the article. // Mattias321 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing specifics, I would guess that his contract (like many footballers) ended on 30th of June. This makes him free to sign with any team inside or outside of any transfer window. So from 1st of July Eriksson was transferred as a free agent therefore games from 1st of July are associated with the new club. Would need more info on the transfer arrangement. Koncorde (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

free agent did not bound by transfer window. I also doubt loan with obligation to buy (in Italy) still require transfer window or not. The loan contract was effectively a temporary transfer of rights, which "loan return" was a key element. "loan with obligation" was simply no "loan return": skipping the step of the transfer back of the rights to the parent club. However, all were too deep into interpret on regulations, so i would suggest stick to the press release "from 1 July" and ignore any transfer window. Matthew_hk tc 15:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't a free transfer. IFK Göteborg bought him from Cagliari for around 3 million SEK. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Dig out the original press release from Cagliari. Not mention the 30 June but "prestito con diritto di riscatto." So, i always doubt such loan with obligation / loan with option to buy, do the deal really still require transfer window worldwide. Matthew_hk tc 15:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ousmane Dembélé

The page went crazy again. I already requested full protection somewhere, but need someone to write a proper wording for such transfer that pending medical. Matthew_hk tc 15:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Iván Balliu

Sorry to bother AGAIN, but help/mediation needed here,

i have been told to stop ABUSING article when the other users (user? M.O. seems the same, at least as far the infobox changes are concerned) link country (in this case Spain), insert ALL appearances in box instead of just league ones. Those are the most important details (the other could be that they address Mr. Balliu as a "defender" instead of a "full-back", and he cannot play as a stopper.

Can anyone reinforce this message so that these users (USER? And my next polite question is: can this be a case of sockpuppetry?) do not think i am pulling their leg (please see my message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrownNotorious#Iv.C3.A1n_Balliu)? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You did very well in collaborating with Eni. Is everthing solved by now? FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The reversion has stopped, but i have received no feedback from User:BrownNotorious and User:Endritoxi (same person, along with User:LluciBOY is what remains to be seen) whatsoever, guess i am the abuser in their eyes. --Quite A Character (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting dates of birth for Alaa Abdul-Zahra

FIFA.com (which I usually consider to be the most reliable source) lists Alaa Abdul-Zahra as being born 22 December 1985: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/players-coaches/people=268120/index.html. However today Iraq played Syria and the teamsheet for the game (which has FIFA's logo in the top right corner) says he was born 22 December 1987: https://s2.postimg.org/blbss15rb/21034689_1661847517221470_7400990261926644494_n.jpg. So I did some more looking around and found an article on FIFA.com from February 2017 saying he is 29 years old which would mean he's born 1987 and would make the original FIFA.com source wrong: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2017/m=2/news=iraq-s-abdulzahra-keeping-the-faith-2868426.html. I then looked at some other random sites like transfermarkt, soccerway and all those types of sites and they all say 1987. So what do we put as his date of birth on his Wiki page? Hashim-afc (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

1987, I'd say. R96Skinner (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Atalanta B.C. loans

Are they really loaning that many players out? I tried to check it out but wasn't sure. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

May be yes or may be no (depends on cited or not). 20 graduates from youth team each year and some of them were offered professional contracts. Just won't be the case of Parma F.C. (>100 players) Matthew_hk tc 10:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Juan Foyth

This player's article suffered some severe vandalism from IP editors over the last few months. I believe a semi-protected status is warranted. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Royal Excel Mouscron

This club has changed name, after a merge with Royal Mouscron-Péruwelz. Now, we have "Category:Royal Excel Mouscron players" and "Category:Royal Mouscron-Péruwelz players"...

Shouldn't they be merged? Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, there should be two categories: Category:R.E. Mouscron players for the pre-merger club (R.E. Mouscron) and Category:Royal Excel Mouscron players for the post-merger club. The two categories you mention appear to both be for post-merger club's players, so yes, they should be merged. As the article was renamed over a year ago, you can request the merger under the speedy guidelines at WP:CfD. Number 57 19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Should there also be a category for R.R.C. Peruwelz players? Technically Royal Excel Mouscron is a continuation of that club, and I doubt there would be many players for the the category anyway since they played in the semi pro league under that identity, but if there are any, it would look a bit odd if they were categorised under a club with a completely different name. But maybe that is overcomplicating it? Crowsus (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If we have articles on anyone who played for R.R.C. Peruwelz prior to the merge, then we should also have a standlone category. I have checked and we do, so I've created Category:R.R.C. Peruwelz players. There's no problem with listing players in a category of the club that they played for when it was renamed though (for instance, anyone who played for Manchester City when they were called Ardwick would still be in the Man City player category). Number 57 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

National team

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Surely in articles it should say Germany or Italy national team, as there isnt a German or Italian narional team Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For background: this stems from the user's repeated edits along the lines of changing "plays for the German national team" to "plays for the Germany national team", i.e. changing adjectival form to country name. I reverted them here with edit summary either "played for Germany" or "played for the German national team": "played for the Germany national team" sounds unnatural". When they reverted me, without edit summary, another editor referred them to the talk page: the discussion, such as it was, is at Talk:Bastian Schweinsteiger#Discussion. As they persisted elsewhere, I undid, at e.g. the featured article Thierry Henry. They reverted, with edit summary "the proper name would be France not French national team".

I'm not sure what they mean by there isnt a German or Italian national team. They seem to be saying that the article name being Germany national football team, i.e. the country name, should in some way override using natural English when referring to it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You dont put that Sterling or Joe Hart play for the English national team do you? Or that Jordan Rhodes plays for the Scottish national team? So why do it in other articles, the country team should be named as the country not nationality. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 10:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

When writing in prose the correct use should be using the adjectival as Struway2 explained above. Also regarding Sterling and Hart we would say they play for the English national team and Rhodes plays for the Scottish national team, those are just more examples. @ChocolateRabbit: If you want to support your argument, bring examples from media etc. --SuperJew (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

But there isn't an English national team its England Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 10:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where you get that from ChocolateRabbit, you need to bring support for your argument not just keep repeating it. --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Examples from media: Schweinsteiger "I just asked the national team coach to not consider me for future call-ups for the German national team", Henry: "Henry quits French national team", "a record goalscorer for English side Arsenal as well as French national team", Buffon: "longtime goalkeeper for Juventus and the Italian national team", Rooney: "Rooney steps down from England’s national team", Casillas: "most capped player in the history of the Spanish national team". --SuperJew (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You should be calling the country by name and not by narionality Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 10:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You should be using correct English. --SuperJew (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling something by its actual name is correct English. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 10:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The English language isn't internally consistent, and trying to make Wikipedia English artificially different from common usage isn't a good idea. Try this Google search:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22plays+for+the+germany+national+team%22++-wikipedia

I got a whole 10 results, mostly to a computer game site, and Google asked if I'd meant "plays for the german national team". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Surely it should be called 'Germany national team' it should referred to by it's actual name and not the nationality Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not much point keep saying it should when it isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless debates ever. It really doesn't matter, they are just different ways of expressing the exact same thing. Jellyman (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the pages I've created and/or worked on in the past and both of your approaches seemed to be used interchangeably. That of course is hardly a guideline to go by but it makes me agree with the last part of Jellyman's comment above - that they express the same thing. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Using standard grammatical English in an encyclopedia doesn't matter? OK... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about the difference of "plays for Sweden" or "playing for the national team of Sweden" or "plays for the Swedish national team". These are all correct and kinda what I expect to see across wikipedia (they all have a time or place). However the "Italy national team" and "Germany national team" is awkward and unnatural. When talking about a players nationality the instinct is to use the nouns of "Swedish" and "German". These, conveniently, also happen to be the adjective form for people, things, clubs, and whatnot from that country. By the same token when we refer to "BMW is a German car manufacturer" we do not say "BMW is a car manufacturer of Germany" which is the roundabout fashion suggested at the start of this by ChocolateRabbit.

Most intro's should refer to "X is an Chinese / German / English Professional Footballer who plays wingcentreforward for Tottenfulburn City and ..." //insert one of the following//

• "the German national team" (natural)
• "the national team of Germany" (often what you see from non-native speakers)
• "Germany" (perfunctory and may not be entirely clear).

The only time this varies (for me) is where practical nationality clashes with sporting nationality, where it's often easier to represent this following the initial blurb intro. Koncorde (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but saying that someone "plays for the Germany National Team" is just grammatically incorrect. It's the same as saying someone "speaks the Germany language." To be grammatically correct, you need to use the adjectival form. It should be "the German National Team" in the same way as it should be "the German language." GroveWanderer (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So while this discussion is happening the user is going around and changing articles to their way of thinking, including reverting people that have reverted them NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 07:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this kind of edit war was quite common (last time i saw Slovak v Slovakia, Montenegrin v Montenegro). Just leave it as it to avoid the endless cycle of edit back and forth, despite i prefer Italian than Italy (on grammar sense). At least this one is not edit war on 3 v three, dmy v mdy. Matthew_hk tc 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If both ways are accepted, then please tell the user who started this to stop changing changing articles to their way of thinking (see for example here and here). This is disruptive editing and that should be made clear to the user. Otherwise this won't stop without some edit warring because why should other editors not change articles to their preferred way. Some support from the community/admins would be helpful here. --Jaellee (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Struway appears to have reverted some, I have reverted a few others - particularly where @ChocolateRabbit: is changing it to the noun mid-sentence such as when describing historical call-ups as part of narratives descriptions. The warning left on users talk page has been reverted. Koncorde (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Should all articles about German footballers say German or Germany national team? Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 12:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

German as this is correct. Kante4 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kante4: In the lead section or anywhere where it is mentioned? —— Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 13:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Everywhere as the players play for the German and not the Germany team. Drop the stick and move on. Kante4 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So any article saying Germany should be changed to German Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

leave Germany in infobox and German national team inline. Matthew_hk tc 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Infobox is Germany at the nationalteam parameter. Kante4 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't have an opinion/interest on which should be used, German team reads slightly more naturally than Germany team but almost no difference. But I would say it's a bit different to the comparison mentioned above with the language. The language spoken by French people is French, but the national football team representing French people is France. Obviously it's therefore also the French national team, but the entity has a name itself, rather than just an adjective form. So, either is correct and either can be used with NEW articles. But there really is no need to go around changing one form to the other in existing pages. There are a lot of other things which could be fixed or improved, please focus your attention on some of them.Crowsus (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. When you edit an article and somehow spot it, ok, other than that, not. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We can probably close this discussion I believe that's everything we need for a consensus. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 14:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johan Cruyff Shield

According to the KNVB, each edition since its rebrand is denoted by a roman numeral like the Super Bowl.[18] Should this be reflected in the individual articles? VEO^onefive 11:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@VEO15: Hi, looking at the link you provided it would seem a good idea, might need the opinion of other editors as well if enough support your proposal it would be fine to change the articles. Thanks Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 11:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Career stats table for subsidiary teams

Hi just trying to get some consensus. Today I reverted the stats table of Aidan Nesbitt to reflect his appearances for Celtic and their Under 20s separately. No issue at all with the other editor as he was trying to tidy up the table. The issue concerns the Scottish Challenge Cup where academy sides (which are reserve sides in their own league, not full B teams in the senior system) play against senior clubs. The same situation exists for the EFL Trophy in England. So in my opinion, it is inaccurate to record the appearances/goals for the academy teams as first team appearances, but they have are senior Cup games so far should appear on a stats table. So to me, the only way to do that clearly is to have separate rows for the academy cup matches.

There seems to be little consistency in recording this. For example, Demarai Gray (which I haven't edited) is displayed they way I would suggest it should be; Liam Feeney has an EFL Trophy game added to his Blackburn total, giving him an 'extra' game for their first team (the same way Nesbitt had been changed to); and Conor McAleny doesn't have EFL Trophy games in his stats table at all, although the cup article for last season showed him playing and scoring for Everton U23 in it.

At present this is all pretty minor but it could get increasingly messy as the seasons roll on and more players who played as youngsters in these cups become well known professionals. By the the way, Soccerway have the Challenge Cup and EFL Trophy listed on their site for each player, under separate academy team entries, so (thankfully) it's easy enough to source and check information on those tournaments. Crowsus (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to include at all, and to include separately from the senior team, and the format used on the Dimmy Gray table, was agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 105#Statistics for Premier League 2. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Perfect thanks, that was also the way I was doing it without being aware of the agreed guidance, and cheers for looking up the previous discussion. If nobody has time to amend the other mentioned players' tables, I'll do it. Crowsus (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Jan Vertonghen domestic stats

I was trying to update his stats, but I am getting really confused. Can someone please fix it for me as my maths at times isn't that great, part of my confusion is the lack of subtotal row for the first two seasons in the table, this stupid not adding up loan seasons or single seasons is really hard for ppl like me to understand these tables at times. It's not very helpful for ppl with dyslexia. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Creation protection: Lorenzo Gordinho

Hi all, I'm looking to create a page for South African footballer Lorenzo Gordinho. I can't do so, though because the name has been protected due to old violations by previous creators before he passed the eligibility test. The player is now a regular for top-flight side Kaizer Chiefs F.C. and has played for the national team so I don't see any of the old issues being a problem anymore. Is there an admin who could assist me with this? Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems I'm able to create now, thank you. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at this merger discussion and possibly closing it? It has been going for two months, an unnecessary time if you ask me considering that all the participants seems to agree. If this isn't a valid discussion or the pages cannot be merged or moved please let me know. Thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Expanding the infobox

Hi. I'm trying to update and correct the infobox for the 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, but when I try to add a new row, for example, "promoted" to list the teams who were promoted, it's says "saved" but then doesn't appear in the updated Infobox. Any help John arneVN (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is a template with pre-set fields. You can't make new fields appear by simply typing that sort of thing in the article. The template itself would need to be amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@John arneVN: It's because you used the parameter "teams promoted" when you should have simply used "promoted". You can see the full list of correct parameters at {{Infobox football league season}}. Number 57 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise that there were preset parameters! Thanks ChrisTheDude John arneVN (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Move request

Please can people come and offer their feedback for the proposal at Talk:2017_CFU_Club_Championship#Requested move 5 September 2017.

• 2017 CFU Club Championship → 2017 Caribbean Club Championship
• 2018 CFU Club Championship → 2018 Caribbean Club Championship

Thanks.

TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahmed Hegazy/Hegazi

No replies so far at Talk:Ahmed Hegazy regarding the spelling of his name in English language media. Would very much welcome the thoughts of other WP:FOOTY editors. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Adrien Silva

Since in no way do I want to engage in any "holier-than-thou" attitude with my reversions here, a doubt before this escalates:

since Sporting has sold his rights, and Leicester City was not allowed to register player yet, do you folks think his intro should read "...is a Portuguese footballer who plays as a central midfielder", without mentioning any club?

Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it should say he "plays for Leicester City", even though he doesn't. The closest equivalent I can think of would be players who signed for Barcelona when they were under their 2015 transfer ban - Aleix Vidal (2015 article) and Arda Turan (2015 article) both said "plays for Barcelona" even though they couldn't. Similarly, Brice Dja Djédjé's article says he "plays for English club Watford in the Premier League" even though he hasn't been registered for the League in this season or the last. OZOO (t) (c) 12:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I can remember Pato plays for Milan in friendly match. Just wording is required to show he can't play official match. (It is common that club have squad quota that some players were left out from quota, just similar to this case but unintentional.) Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Something like "who plays as a central midfielder and is contracted to Leicester City" would work, and would also make it clear that something out of the ordinary is going on. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Turan is a helpful parallel. FIFA are refusing to process the registration of Silva with Leicester. It's possible (maybe even likely) that if their appeal against FIFA's decision fails they may try to argue that Silva is still a Sporting player and that they should not have to pay the transfer fee. Whereas Turan signed for Barcelona in full knowledge that he could not be registered for some time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Großkreutz was a full Galatasaray player. Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand the legalities but there seems to be some sort of confusion about his status. Why not just go with something like "Adrien Silva is a Portuguese footballer who last played for Sporting. He is due to join Leicester City on 1 January 2018". If something definitive happens, then change it. Speculating using Wikipedia's voice is not helpful. Hack (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hack, Regarding the rumour that Leicester City try not to sign him in winter, it is more likely a rumour, or unpredictable outcome that usually end up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, just like Ricky Álvarez. Matthew_hk tc 13:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Contract "renewal" for free agent

Can some admin talk to the users who tried to vandalize Zlatan Ibrahimović's infobox again and again? Matthew_hk tc 06:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Can you help? Thanks. ----Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Terminology (game→match, games→matches)

User:‎Iggy the Swan is running through articles changing game to match saying what I put in the title here. I really don't understand whats wrong with using the word game for a football match here and there. I really don't want articles to look too formal as if they were written by a Vulcan, it would be horrible reading! Govvy (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on the area. In Australia for example sports are usually played in matches, but in USA they are games (all my friends laughed at me when I told them I'm going to watch a baseball match ;) ) I don't think it really matters to either direction. If you look at Exhibition game, the terminology seems to be varied. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Same change has been made to a few of the pages I work on but I'm okay with it. I actually think that match is the more appropriate terminology for encyclopedic entries on football. "Game" seems more conversational. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In British English, "match" would be normal usage, but using "game" as an occasional alternative, e.g. for variety, to avoid too much repetition, is perfectly acceptable. So long as the editor concerned isn't just replacing all uses of "game" regardless of context, it shouldn't be a problem. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a problem with using the word "game", especially if you would otherwise have the word "match" too many times in quick succession. Let's be sensible and actually write some good prose, not just create boilerplate articles that use the same terminology over and over again. – PeeJay 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-diffusing subcats: the two China in sports

As discussed in Koavf's talk page. How to deal with situation such as Ireland national football team (1882–1950)? Irish had the right cat Irish association footballers, but Republic of China (Taiwan) did not. Republic of China (Taiwan) once call-up many footballers from Hong Kong (as the government of "free zone China"), including the success in the Asian Games as well as participation in 1960 Summer Olympics. Until today Hong Kong people still eligible to Republic of China nationality, but nowadays require onshore "naturalization" period, but Hong Kong people can't represent Taiwan in today FIFA regulation. However, in the past it can as Chinese diaspora. In today standard non of them were related to modern border of Taiwan the country nor Taiwanese diaspora. It look likes representing all Irish team is not equal as Northern Irish footballers. Matthew_hk tc 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it fine to create a cat Republic of China (1949–1971) international footballers? According to this research (in Chinese) the 1954 to 196 Asian Games were fielded with mostly Hong Kong-born Chinese, with only 5 from Taiwan in 1954, zero in 1958, 1 in 1962 (withdrew due to diplomatic problem between ROC and Indonesia) and zero again in 1966. Choosing 1971 as cut-off was provisional (1971 was the change in UN to recognize PRC government as the representative of China), but around 1970s was the date that Hong Kong-born Chinese no longer eligible to Republic of China (Taiwan) team as they were Chinese diaspora but not Taiwanese diaspora nor Taiwan resident. Matthew_hk tc 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, see the article Lam Sheung Yee and its history. Note that he is presently under Category:Chinese Taipei international footballers which is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Taiwanese footballers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It involve Mok Chun Wa, Yiu Chuk Yin, Cheung Chi Doy, Pau King Yin and many more players. Looks like the case of Serbia and Montenegro international footballers Matthew_hk tc 11:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It also involve Hau Yung Sang and Ho Ying Fun which represented China before and after 1949 the Chinese civil war. Matthew_hk tc 13:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Or rather a cat like Republic of Ireland international footballers from Northern Ireland is a partial-solution? Theoretically the international players were eligible to ROC (Taiwan) passport and the government did gave them passport as honorary basis recently (at retirement age), so leaving them as Taiwanese footballers is fine. Matthew_hk tc 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei international footballers from Hong Kong was created. Matthew_hk tc 10:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about minimum salaries for "fully professional" status according to WP:FOOTY

There is currently a discussion about the addition of France's Division 1 Féminine to the notability essay WP:FPL. The minimum salary deemed "fully professional" is also being discussed. Input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#French Women's League. Hmlarson (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Omar Oreste Corbatta

The following situation: I think in the past it has been established that we divide honours into "club" and "international", not "club" and "national team", am i correct? Also, i think it was established a long time ago we don't use numbers in display of honours won, ESPECIALLY in the case of (1) or (2), am i correct?

A fellow user (which has been notified to participate here by me, don't fret) thinks differently, and reverted me accusing me of not explaining my changes (I did, of course my summary can use some more tact as habitually! But I DID write an explanatory note). Also in honours, i tried to display the full name of competition - why remove the "Argentine" when several other countries also have a league named "Primera División"? - and was reverted)...

Now, for another matter (or not, since i was also reverted here, but here i admit i did not offer any reasons), in the same article: Mr. Corbatta's playing position. A WINGER or a FORWARD? I chose "forward" originally because of the number of goals he scored, but it seems the most correct one would be "right winger" because of the sources (NFT.com, and the new ref i added from Racing Club's official website, where he is called a "puntero derecho" (right winger); all in all, it can be a bit tricky to define, because of the decades he played in (where they engaged in 4-2-4 if not still 2-3-5), but i don't think it's very consistent to name him a forward in a part of the article and a winger elsewhere.

Last but not least, the subject's name: it seems it is "Oreste Omar" and not "Omar Oreste" (in fact, same source says he was registered with a typo, which "left him" named "Oreste Osmar".

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• First input is going to be mine, i apologize to User:Fma12 (and removed parts of my original message) because i did not notice i performed this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Oreste_Corbatta&diff=799735556&oldid=798367698) logged off. But I, in my "anonymous form", did write a summary, cannot be stressed enough. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all: Thanks @Quite A Character: for inviting me to participate. I have always tried to make constructive edits to the different articles (I usually edit not only football and sports but other topics, such as comics or art). I removed the "Argentine" from "Primera División" because it would sound redundant if the honours refer to "national" or "domestic" championships, I guess. But I wouldn't refuse if this is changed.

About Corbatta's position on the field, "right winger" would be the most appropriate (as you said, "puntero derecho" in Spanish); he usually plays into a 2-3-5 system. As far as I know, "forward" is more generic to include all the attacking line (left and right wingers, centre-forwards and left and right insiders in the old 2-3-5). This is the reason because I think "winger" is more suitable in this case.

From now on, I'm open to read your feedback and opinions. Thanks in advance from Argentina. Ah! Apologies accepted, of course. Thank you again - Fma12 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, sincerely :) Let's go bit by bit:

1 - readers don't have the obligation to know where a club comes from, so there is a slight possibility someone might think he had won the Peruvian Primera División and not the Argentine League; 2 - i see what you mean, but we must be consistent, if you notice, the box and the second part of intro say he played as a winger and the first part of intro say he was a forward. We MUST adjust that, don't you think?

3 - since you don't seem to oppose, i'll also adjust his full name, if you see his biography from Racing's official web you will notice him being name "Oreste O(s)mar" and not "Omar Oreste". Happy week, thanks again --Quite A Character (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply point by point: 1) I won't oppose if the "Argentine" word is included; 2) You're right, the word "winger" (or "right winger" if you want to be more specific) should be included in all the extent of the article to avoid confussions. 3) As an Argentine myself, I must tell you that everyone here refers him as "Oreste Omar", with or without the "S", but in all the cases, "Oreste" as the first name.

If you need more assistance, don´t hesitate to contact me. Thanks again and sorry if I was a bit rude before, it was not my intention. Best week, - Fma12 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment by Quite A Character. It is standard practice to not include numbers in the honours section, and to use to the section headings "Club" and "International". Mattythewhite (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Matty, and I use the same display in my edits. At least that's in accordance with Wikipedia:FOOTY/Players, a guideline for these types of articles. MYS77 ^✉ 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Rescinded loan

Adam Federici was loaned by Bournemouth to Nottingham Forest, but due to him being injured during international duty both clubs have agreed to rescind the loan and he's back at Bournemouth before playing for Nottingham Forest (and I don't think he trained with them either). My question is, should his loan to Nottingham Forest be kept in the infobox? (obviously there should be a couple of sentences about it in the main article prose). --SuperJew (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If that happened after the loan was completed, then it should be included. Kante4 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The loan was signed, but he never made it to the club, and the loan was rescinded (which I understand means revoked or cancelled (as opposed to "terminated early")). --SuperJew (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, should he be in Nottingham Forest players category? --SuperJew (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it should not be included, in the same way that Bondz N'Gala's move to Gillingham is not included..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If a contract was signed, i think the loan should be in the infobox (as oppose to a loan was agreed, subject to medical); he probably injured on 31 August 2017 Asia time, not sure it was before or after the international transfer window. Matthew_hk tc 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The exact time of injury was not known, but it look like after 31 August but before 3 September 2017 [19]. Not sure 31 August was the ending date of domestic transfer of (emergency) goalkeeper signing or not (not look up the 612 pages handbook yet), but the time frame look like he did not have a medical but signed a contract? Matthew_hk tc 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Reading the main article, it appears to be something we should include. There was in fact an agreement to loan, that loan was formatively completed, and it seems Bournemouth were within their rights to make Federici stay at Forest through his recovery period and make them incur the wage bill accordingly. Instead, per Warburton, Bournemouth have agreed to take Federici back. The act of being "rescinded" / "cancelled" / "terminated" or not is irrelevant really - that's merely a way of best summarising the fact that the loan is still valid, but the wages / costs and recovery would be Bournemouths costs to incur (thus freeing Forest from the burden). In contrast where many loans are terminated early, the costs remain with the loan team (i.e. the up front fee is not returned, nor any wages paid, and in some cases the player returns but the loan club must still maintain wage payments).

In contrast, Bondz contract was signed etc but the transfer was ruled invalid. By the same token a player whose paperwork is submitted late can be "signed" but then have it ruled invalid. Bondz was effectively not allowed to complete his transfer, which is different to completing a transfer which is then cancelled. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde! Seems a good explanation to me :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Separately, aren't the team categories for players that made appearances? Or maybe I haven't kept up to date on their use. Koncorde (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Assistance at Talk:FC Steaua București

I don't know if it's just incompetence or a misunderstanding, but can someone please visit the talk page for FC Steaua București and see what the issue is over this user's requested change regarding the establishment of the club? The user has been asked multiple times to establish a consensus for the change, but they still create requests for similar changes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a difficult topic. There is now FC Steaua București and CSA Steaua București (football) that basically cover the same club at least until 2003. There is now FCSB playing in the 1st tier, and CSA Steaua playing in the 4th tier. FCSB is still called Steaua by some sources. -Koppapa (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest they only cover the same club from 2003 until the date of name change in 2017. Prior to that it was one or the other, but which one doesn't yet seem clear as I do not see a court's final decision yet. Ultimately the FC Steaua București article will need renaming, and some words are going to be needed around the history in both articles. If the latter, the FCSB article will need to explain about using the other name for the 2003-2017 period. If the former, it will need to explain it was previously called that and then renamed. ClubOranje^T 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Eduardo Berizzo

Happened for the second time (at least!), so i bring this to the attention of the "commission": who else thinks that the "Remarks on homosexuality" section (sourced, of course, which it is) belongs in the article? An anon "user" does not seem to think so (personal friend of Mr. Berizzo? A simple VANDAL? Who knows?), and removes the entire section with summaries like "Reduced unnecessary content" or "Not pertinent to the wiki article"; since one action was performed in England and the other in Saudi Arabia, it's quite possible that it's not even the same person.

If the vast majority of the people here think that it's not relevant then i'm at ease, next time they (or he/she?) remove(s) the content then it stays removed, as far as i'm concerned at least. I'd also like to apologize to WP at large for my outburst in summary (an admin can block me and I will not protest the very least), but i find actions such as these to be very VERY frustrating.

Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶k̶e̶p̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶t̶o̶m̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶l̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶,̶ t̶h̶e̶n̶ I think if it is going to be kept the title and the paragraph should be re-written. At the moment it is really just one quote saying he said this and another saying he didn't, it should have something written about it rather than just the quotes. I'm not sure with regards to BLP policy if it is allow or not, but wonder if it is really just WP:BLPGOSSIP and not really required on the page as it appears a once off and a he said/they said thing so would be happy for it to be removed. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed input, but just one pointer: personal life (and akin) stuff goes BEFORE the honours and the statistics and not AFTER, per WP:FOOTY consensus (or has it changed again? Could be). --Quite A Character (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No sorry, I'm getting myself mixed up, ignore what I said about moving the section but I still feel the rest of what I said was relevant. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 22:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say it could possibly be removed seen as he has denied making the remarks. If it were to stay I think it should be titled 'controversy' and the text say something like "Berizzo was quoted as making disparaging comments about homosexuals and about what he allegedly called 'faggotry in European football'. However he denied making the remarks and insisted he was not homophobic".--EchetusXe 09:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree it should be included. You might also want to request input at WP LGBT Studies, Quite A Character. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Liam Davis

Hi I am the footballer (LIAM DAVIS) could someone please respond to my full edit request at Talk:Liam Davis (footballer)? Thank you". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdavis86 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to see if I could make the changes but having a look at the difference the user is asking for, there is a lot of WP:FLOWERY language like "after intense rehab", "his brilliant solo effort travelling half the length of the pitch to unleash a terrific strike against" and "he scored again with a powerful volley" that it would take some time to update the article while taking this language out. Unfortunately that happens when it is written by someone with WP:COI. I will try look at it later when I have time unless someone else wants to take it NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Reserve team players who have played for senior teams

Greetings.
There are a number of players who have been given contract by reserve/B teams of football clubs (I am referring about those reserve clubs which play in the same league system like Werder Bremen II playing in 3.Liga and not about parallel league systems). It is found that some of these players had been an unused substitute for the main squad a couple of times. Now my question is that should we mention that he has played for the senior team in the infobox? For example, Ivan Prtajin was signed by the reserve/youth team of Udinese. He was an unused substitute for Udinese senior team in a match. By the virtue if it, is the detail shown in the infobox that he has played with Udinese from 2014 to 2017 correct or wrong? RRD (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm very against making the assumption that a reserve/youth player who makes the senior bench has somehow 'begun' their senior career as far as our infobox is concerned... GiantSnowman 17:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Always check if WP:GNG met for a player. It supercedes WP:NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really relevant to his question. I agree with GiantSnowman, I wouldn't say being on the bench means you are in the first team. The infobox should reflect when they actually became part of the first team squad. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How about pre-season friendly? Against a weak team likes Chiasso was many Inter reserve player "first" cap, but they did not make any competitive one. Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RM at Template talk:German Regionalliga (football)

This is a notification that a user has requested a move at Template talk:German Regionalliga (football). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Under 20 Elite League

The 2017–18 Under 20 Elite League article has been nominated for deletion. Please come and provide your feedback at the nomination. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"The greatest"

In lead of some articles such Real Madrid and FC Barcelona there is a claim: "that squad is recognised by some as the greatest of all-time". Is not a POV and WP:PEACOCK for delete?190.113.209.224 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is reliably sourced, I don't see the problem, but I would be more specific about who said it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For claims such as that, I think I would want to see multiple reliable sources making that claim in order for it to be considered encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There are also claims for "most successful" but this, puffery like "the greatest" and [...] unsupported attributions like "by some" are biased for a neutral encyclopedia.--190.239.158.12 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

More neutral language, and better context for the comments is required. There is nothing wrong with someone being the best - but it usually should be attributed to a specific entity that awards such things, or from such a reputable source on the subject matter that it's indisputable. For instance "fastest footballer" should only come from someone who applies some kind of logic to the process, not some random journalist based on the few he has seen, with extensive caveats (I am thinking of Vardy and Bellerin who OPTA or someone measured their peak speeds for, versus someone's claim in a paper). Historic discussions of teams like the Magic Maygars should reference their period of dominance, quantifying the claim, rather than making a universal claim. For instance many teams are the "best". It's a matter of fact that RECENTISM will always favour current events. Koncorde (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the "biggest" soccer club team in history, the only thing that exists are the FIFA awards (world governing body) and IFFHS (organism specialized in football history) mentioned in some club articles. The opinion of "some" or "many" is POV.--200.106.94.50 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)