Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 127

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Requested move: 'England national football team'

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I have initiated a move request pertaining to the England national football team page. The discussion can be found Talk:England national football team#Requested move 2 September 2019. Posting a notice here as I think it will be of interest to a number of people that frequent this page (but do not follow the England national football team talk page). Domeditrix (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it interesting they go after England but why not Scotland or the Republic of Ireland pages for example? It might be a little WP:POINTy to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you used a less aggressive tone.They is me, the person you are responding to. I am English, and have an interest in the English national teams, whereas I don't really have an interest in the Scottish or Irish teams. I don't think I've ever even edited pages of Scottish or Irish players (unless they played for Exeter City F.C.). I don't see how this is remotely WP:POINTy, honestly. Domeditrix (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion a) friendly and b) at the RM talk page, not here. Giant Snowman 09:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is nice that it is mentioned here to tap into a wider audience to participate in the debate at the RM Talk Page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although all relevant discussions should be listed at WP:FOOTYDEL please (which I pretty much singlehandedly maintain!). Giant Snowman 10:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

GS has a great point here. Besides, that is a discussion which outcome can definitelly end up having a domino effect to all others, so such discussions end up being on a much wider range of interest, including the several WP´s, than just for editors involved in the article itself, so a way of notifiying everyone is appreciated. FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

All football-related discussions (and other things) are automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts‎, so not sure why WP:FOOTYDEL needs to exist, especially if it has to be manually updated. Number 5 7 20:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake to forget article alerts included RfM´s. FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Leasing.com notability

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Time for my annual reminder, are players who debut in the Leasing.com trophy (Football League Trophy) notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think all league one and two teams are fully professional, so those games would be fine. I think the issue is the matches against Academies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, if you play in the competition for or against an Academy team then no; but if you play in a match between L1/L2 teams then they meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just wondering if this applied in general even to continental competitions, such as the UEFA Europa League or the AFC Cup: in case two teams of non-professional leagues were to meet in such a competition, would a footballer playing in the match be deemed notable? Or would both teams have to be part of a professional league? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I rummaged through European cups this summer, creating 500 articles, and in my view lots of players in the continental cups, especially the pre-rounds, fall well below WP:V. And therefore cannot be considered notable. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A fully professional national competition with a final at the national stadium would certainly meant he players would meet the criteria in my view. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My issue was regarding teams playing in NON professional domestic leagues who play in PROFESSIONAL continental competitions, such as a Northern Irish team in the Europa League or a Lebanese team in the AFC Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's very simple. If you play for or against a team not from a FPL (regardless of competition) then you have not played in a competition between two teams from FPLs and do not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability for referees

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any guideline on that? Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

I've just had this MOS page linked to me. I was always under the impression that we leave date ranges open if they're ongoing, but the MOS says we should put "present". This would mean changing a buttload of football biographies. Obviously I'm not suggesting we all go out and change them now, but if anyone does see "present" in an infobox date range, I would advise against removing it. – Pee Jay 12:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - although I'm going to WP:IAR. Giant Snowman 12:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to go out of my way to add it anywhere, but I'm going to stop removing it if I see it. – Pee Jay 12:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Would different rules apply in infoboxes and tables? I can see why present should be included within prose text, but can see reasons for excluding it in tabulated information. Jts1882 | talk 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

“In tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.). Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... .” Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: "Pres." looks strange. I think if we are going to do this "present" is fine, it is not much longer - space in footballer infoboxes are not limited that much. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I’m fine with both, as long as we are consistent with the MOS. For now I’m adding “pres.”, but if someone were to change them into “present” I wouldn’t revert them back. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we haven't reached a consensus yet to even add these... there's no rush to do this. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why consensus needs to be reached before abiding by a site-wide MOS. Following site-wide MOS should be the default, no? Domeditrix (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's more about understanding why this has never been used on football articles. Football biographies are a huge portion of the site so it's not like these slipped under the radar for over a decade. FkpCascais below alludes to a previous discussion, so I'm assuming there's a reason why we don't use it? Kosack (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If this were to be implemented, this would have to be a large-scale edit, one which a bot would probably only be able to do, so before humans start doing this and only scratch the surface, we should have a plan on how to achieve full implementation before we go ahead. For the record, I'd support this as it is a policy, only if we use the full word "present" as they do in NBA. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's going to be a bit misleading when used on the national team section in the infobox given we leave it open until a player has retired (internationally or in general). Hack (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point. To present implies the player is a current (or recent) international, rather than one who just hasn't been picked for a while. If the change to use of present was implemented, we'd need to close the dates on players whose last games was some time ago, which would open a subjective can of worms that couldn't be sourced. Jts1882 | talk 11:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would second that point, I notice Nehme is already adding this to a handful of articles. This needs to be a project wide rollout if it gains consensus rather than adding it to a handful of articles otherwise consistency is all over the shop. Kosack (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you both, I should have waited for a consensus to have been reached. I will stop adding “pres.” to articles until we have decided what to do. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to add anything, I agree with User:Vaselineeeeeeee that there's no need to abbreviate to "pres." Just go with "present" if you must, but again, don't edit articles just to make this change. – Pee Jay 19:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's pointless adding the word present in the info boxes. Govvy (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember loooong time ago we said we should not add "present" into infoboxes... FkpCascais (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also prefer to have date ranges left open if they are ongoing. However, if forced to choose other option then definitely use full word rather than abbreviation. RossRSmith (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep it out. Giant Snowman 11:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

An extremely limited survey of various sports picks up use of present for NFL, NBA and cricket, but not football or rugby union. It does seem to be a choice of various projects. Jts1882 | talk 13:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Honours list dispute

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I have had a disappointing experience in attempting to update the list of “Honours” for a Premier League club, Tottenham Hotspur, and I’m hoping others can help reason prevail. I should preface this by saying I am intimately familiar with reference guidelines and selection criteria as a veteran editor and publisher of scores reference books, and so I take reference guidelines seriously. On this point, The Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs guidelines clearly state the “Honours” section is for “Achievements of the club including wins and second places.”

This is exactly the content I provided in my edit. I included the club’s recent Runners-up finish (for which they won silver medals from UEFA) in the Champions League, the club's biggest achievement in European competition and in the biggest and most important and lucrative club competition in the world. I also updated the list with the club’s two trophies in recent summer tournaments, the International Champions Cup and the Audi Cup, both of which have extensive Wikipedia entries dedicated to them, as well as related entries for each individual year of the competition. (The ICC, for instance, has become so big that it set the U.S. attendance record.)

Unfortunately, I have been contacted by a couple of keyboard warriors who are committed to censoring my edit. One user erroneously and arbitrarily told me: “Honours is for major trophies”—-it says no such thing, as I have demonstrated above—-and mentioned the threat of me getting blocked. Another person (who I see ranting at other people here) asserted: “There is a difference to achievements and honours”—when, in fact, the guidelines literally define “Honours” as “Achievements of the club including wins and second places.” This same person also erroneously pointed to a non-existing “consensus” by using the argument that “A football club doesn't receive a runner up trophy!” Not only does this contradict the guideline I cited above, but as I demonstrated to this user in Talk to this user, his assertion contradicts the Wikipedia precedent of at least a dozen club entries—Atletico Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Valencia, Olympique de Marseille, Saint-Étienne, Hamburger SV, Borussia Mönchengladbach, FK Patrizan, Malmö FF, FCSB, etc.—that ALL list runner-up finishes in the Champions League. Some of them also list runners-up finishes in every single domestic competition!

Therefore, it is contradictory to both Wikipedia guideline *and* to Wikipedia precedent that my edit re: the Champions League final would be arbitrarily deleted.

The only qualification to that criterion of “wins and second places” is “For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places.” Common sense tells us this qualification is to allow for extreme cases such as Manchester United or Liverpool—who have more doubles and trebles than most clubs have titles—so that those particular entries with long Honours lists do not become bogged down by included all their second-place finishes, too. Indeed, while I cited a dozen examples of club entries to illustrate Wikipedia precedent, the user mentioned only two counterexamples, Man U and Liverpool, both of which are clearly covered by the side stipulation regarding “clubs with a large number of major trophies.” Also, this qualification says it “may be appropriate,” so clearly the intent and spirit of this qualification is not to be not a rule applied rigidly across the board as a prohibition, but rather as a guideline that “may be” appropriate in some extreme cases. Furthermore, I note that other club entries even list winning the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup—a defunct competition that has never been recognized by UEFA, and which was literally known as the “Runners Up Cup.” So there is no reason whatsoever not to list when a club achieves the much more prestigious distinction in winning silver medals in the UEFA Champions League.

Regarding summer tournaments, I understand and accept that there can be reasonable disagreement as to how significant they are. Some people dismiss summer tournaments, and that's their right. But again, the inclusion criteria for “wins and second places” is not limited to “major” trophies. And there’s probably good reason for that, as the word “major” is intrinsically subject to value judgments; for example, many people consider a League Cup trophy to be major while others dismiss it as a secondary tournament. Clearly, however, the stated criteria is for “wins and second places,” not “wins only in tournaments that any given user considers to be major.” Wouldn't we want a list to include items that are cross-referenced to the Wikipedia entry for the tournament/year that the club won?

So I can see healthy debate on the inclusion of the ICC and Audi trophies (as long as it is grounded in guidelines and not personal agendas), but it seems obvious that there's no reason whatsoever to censor the Champions League runner-up distinction on the club's Honours list. My hope is that we can adhere to common sense and guidelines here, rather than selective misreadings that are being used to rigidly ban information from lists due to a user’s own personal opinions or agendas. If anything, we should veer toward including—-rather than concealing—-significant information in lists for the benefit of the end user, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Thank you!

Realgonerocket88 (talk) 21 August 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that most agree with you on the runners-up finish for the Champions League being an honour. However all honours need to be referenced, here is a reference for you for that. I don't think many will agree with you over the Audi Cup wins, as these are glorified friendlies, invitation only summer tournaments. The honours lists of big clubs would become bloated if these were to be included. See here the many minor trophies Port Vale have picked up. It's fair enough if you want to include them in Tottenham's records page here, but not on the club's main article page no. Readers may expect to see major cup final appearances in the main honours list (i.e. defeats as well as wins) but they won't expect to see a ream of minor trophies for competitions they won't have even heard of.--Echetus Xe 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Use the main article to list their significant achievements. Wins and runners up of competitive competitions are legitimate. A reference is preferred for the entire section if possible (or by competition) of which dozens are freely available.

However, with regards to competitions outside of the main calendar of football such as the Audi cup they are not significant for a football clubs main article. They are friendlies, invitationals at best, often between hand picked teams for their own gratification and edification. They are generally only included in those teams who have no significant victories in major trophies, or as historic records where clubs don't have a separate article for their achievements. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. I've added the CL runner up in accordance with WikiProject guidelines/precedent/our discussion here, but I will omit the ICC or Audi. Thank you also for the helpful 11v11 link on THFC records and statistics! Realgonerocket88 (talk) 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm, you already left a huge conversation on my talk page over this and I've tried to explain to you there. This isn't just me, but a number of other editors have set a format on the Honours section at the Tottenham Hotspur article by listing the trophies won on the main article page and have a sub page of List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics for the rest, not once have you gone there have you? Have you even listened properly to what Hzh has to say? Tottenham have reached multiple cup finals, been runner up multiple times, the section would be too long if you started doing that, it's best to avoid adding all the runner up information to stop it getting over the top, hence the second page! Govvy (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether to put second place there, except to note what the guidelines say, which is that it can be added but inappropriate when the list gets too big. The argument is therefore whether the list will get too bloated if it is included. I can see on one hand that a single extra entry would not bloat the article, and it may also be argued that the Champions League is a special case because it is probably the biggest club competition; on the other hand it can become an invitation for others to add other second places. So I'm sitting on the fence in this case. Just a note to Realgonerocket88 - avoid reverts, if you can't get a resolution here, then read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE on other possible avenues you can explore, perhaps starting a WP:RFC on the article talk page. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, what are you not understanding? First of all, YOU told me, “Goto WP:FOOTBALL then, they will pretty much repeat what I've already said" (and I won't include what you said after that with a fair share of attitude). Guess what? I came here and first thing I was told above is: “Yes, you're right that most agree with you on the runners-up finish for the Champions League being an honour.” Also, you arbitrarily told me: “There is a difference to achievements and honours. Getting to a cup final is an achievement not an honour. Receiving a trophy is an honour.” Guess what? The Wiki Project Football guidelines for Honours disagree with you, as they clearly say: “Achievements of the club including wins and second places." And, yes, thanks for asking but I did correspond with Hzh and he also encouraged me to discuss on Talk here—and, in fact, I came around to his thinking on the preseason tournaments thanks to the group feedback. You, however, might be a keyboard warrior who would rather force your interpretation onto other people, even if it contradicts Wikipedia’s? And then flame anyone who disagrees with you? I see how you were on the Jack Roles entry above - telling everyone they were "destroying" the article and how it made you "sick" to have irrelevant information removed. Ironically, you're focusing your energies on me now and opposing my attempt to add very relevant and significant information to a list for users to readily see.

Hzh, to your point, exactly: One single entry - for what is not just (as you note) the biggest club competition in the world but also what many have called the club's biggest achievement in Europe, certainly would not bloat the article. As I’ve cited the dozen of other clubs where the CL Runner-Up is included, we can look at rather comparable club entries such as Atlético Madrid or Borussia Dortmund, who have lists that are not at all bloated but which are longer than Spurs' AND which list their CL R/U seasons. Clearly not a situation like Man U or Liverpool; LFC have about as many doubles and trebles listed as Spurs have honors total. I’d also dispute the slippery slope fallacy. If it’s this hard to add the club's silver medal in the biggest UEFA competition without someone deleting it, it doesn't mean a horde of users are going to rush in to try, much less being allowed, to list a bunch of second place finishes in the Asia Cup or whatever. I'm simply trying to add an item to the list, in accordance with guidelines and precedent, to reflect that the club entered a rather exclusive group in becoming a Champions League finalist just this year - something that is regularly touted now by neutral commentators as being a highlight of the club's resume. It would defy reason to have one big club's entry (Dortmund, e.g.) list a second place in 2. Bundesliga, but not have another big club's entry list the most important second-place/silver medal a club can achieve.

Btw, I see the citation that I added on the kind of advice of EchetusXe above also was deleted. That's a bit much. Realgonerocket88 (talk) 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to start a new section or use a different WP process or continue on here, so apologies if wrong spot...I've been a reader for quite a few years but have only become a more active participant in recent times. In my opinion, part of the Project guidelines for club main page articles needs to be amended. These clearly state that the “Honours” section is for “Achievements of the club including wins and second places” and I don't have an issue with that. However, I am not comfortable with the next sentence which reads: "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." large number and may be appropriate to omit, that is a double-standard and needs to change. If a club has an win or r-up honour then it should be listed whether achieved once or twenty times. This current dispute (to list or not Tottenham Hotspur CL r-up 2018-19 honour) surely would not occur if the guidelines were applied even-handedly across the whole Project. Whether it be Port Vale or Real Madrid, be consistent...if the Honours section on the club's main page article is to uphold present guidelines then wins & runners-up can be shown. If guidelines are amended to specifically refine it to "wins only," then so be it. But please don't make it like the Valencia CF page - dipping a toe in both pools is not a good look for a discussion such as this. RossRSmith (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

...So to sum up:

Firstly, the WP: FOOTBALL guidelines clearly state the “Honours” section is for: “Achievements of the club including wins and second places." This is not debatable.

Secondly, a detailed look at the precedent established across Wikipedia entries for all European Cup/Champions League Runners Up further demonstrates that, in the interests of consistency, a CL runner-up (or, literally, silver-medal) finish in the biggest club competition in the world is more than appropriate as a list item in the main Tottenham Hotspur entry:

Please note that the majority of these club entries (17 of 31 total) DO list Runners-Up finishes…and many list 2nd place in other competitions, as well. I’ve even seen 3rd or QF listed in some! (I’ve also seen multiple club entries that list, under “UEFA Honours,” the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, which was not sanctioned by UEFA.) While the guidelines do add “For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places”—-and I tend to agree with RossRSmith that this can lead to subjectivity over consistency—-an analysis of the entry data reveals that Tottenham clearly fits more closely into the category of entries (the majority) that do list R/U medalists in the European Cup/CL…

Among the 17 clubs with entries that do list European/CL R/U, these clubs have a median # of 8 top-flight domestic league titles—e.g. Borussia Dortmund or Monaco. (Even this median is skewed higher by a few big-fish-in-small-ponds such as Malmo and Celtic.) Significantly, of these 17 clubs, 13 have never won the European Cup/CL, and the remaining 4 have won just once. Tottenham have won their top-flight domestic league twice, and they have not won the European Cup/CL tourney yet - so their R/U finish takes on even more significance as the club’s highest finish in the biggest club competition.

In contrast, the club entries that omit R/U in the CL clearly do so because they have a very lengthy lists of titles (i.e. “a large number of trophies”). These 14 clubs have a median # of 19 top-flight domestic league titles—-or right smack dab between Liverpool and Manchester United, two clubs that, as I’ve noted, have more doubles and trebles than many clubs have titles. Furthermore, 11 of the 14 clubs have won the European/CL Cup, and 10 have won it multiple times. Spurs would not fit into this statistical category.

Finally, I came here to discuss in Talk, and the majority support the inclusion of the runner-up finish in the main Spurs entry:

“Yes, you're right that most agree with you on the runners-up finish for the Champions League being an honour”—EchetusXe

“Use the main article to list their significant achievements. Wins and runners up of competitive competitions are legitimate.”—Koncorde

“These clearly state that the ‘Honours’ section is for ‘Achievements of the club including wins and second places’ and I don't have an issue with that…Whether it be Port Vale or Real Madrid, be consistent...if the Honours section on the club's main page article is to uphold present guidelines then wins & runners-up can be shown.”—RossRSmith

“What the guidelines say, which is that it can be added but inappropriate when the list gets too big. The argument is therefore whether the list will get too bloated if it is included.”—Hzh (I’ve addressed the point above about the category of entries that might be bloated, and I think we can all agree that adding a single item to a list to include the club’s most important European achievement will not make it bloated.)

Accordingly, I have tried to make this simple addition while carefully noting in these accompanying comments field that the addition of this one item is in keeping with guidelines, precedent, and even the majority opinion here in Talk. Govvy, you’ve responded to a couple of us now. You told me that everyone would “repeat” what you said. They have not. You’ve referred to a “consensus” supposedly formed several years ago, yet it is not supported by the WP guidelines. Your operating premise (“There is a difference to achievements and honours. Getting to a cup final is an achievement not an honour. Receiving a trophy is an honour.”) is both arbitrary and explicitly contradicted by the guidelines, by precedent, and even by the majority opinion expressed here. On this point it seems, as Henry Fonda says to Lee J. Cobb in 12 Angry Men, you’re alone. You seem to be the one who is militantly standing in the way of a consensus that is supported by Wikipedia itself. I conceded to the majority on the question of summer tournaments. Will you agree to do the reasonable thing and stop contesting the point about CL Runners Up? As I can tell you from professional experience, a reference source is not about one person telling everyone what to do on a selective basis, but rather about consistency for the end user. Thank you.Realgonerocket88 (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

B-teams loan players?

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Some IP user (who keeps on changing his/her IP to vandalize the article) is constantly reverting me at Atlético Madrid. He/she is claiming that some of those loanees (like Víctor Mollejo, Francisco Montero (footballer, born 1999) and some others) should have a section "out on loan" on Atlético Madrid B. As far as I know, B-teams cannot loan players, the loan entity is the club.

However, @Govvy: thinks the opposite: per his opinion, "If a player from an academy or B team goes out on loan and there is a club page for it, that information should go on that page. These loans are too trivial to be on the main club page."

My question is: what is the more correct approach regarding loan players? Should we keep them all in the first team (Spanish and Brazilian football approach), should we break them by pages (English football approach) or should we do something else? MYS 77 ^✉ 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, can you keep this conversation in one place, we already started at the Atlético Madrid‎ talk page. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at Atlético Madrid B and it's impossible for me to read whats in those tables for Season to season, talk about WP:ACCESS violation!! Govvy (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit off-topic, and the tiers in those tables have a number against them in addition to the colours so it should be clear enough to discern which division they were in...? Crowsus (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ye, @Crowsus: a fair bit off topic, I went to the B article to see what players were recorded on loan, but on those tables all I could read was the heading row and the Copa del Ray column, dam near impossible for me to read the rest. Even when I inverted it didn't help. Would either have to change my colour setup or something else. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. In that case, it might be advisable to change the colour in those tables just to a box representing the tier (alongside the separate box with number) so the other boxes remain 'clear' and readable to users like yourself. Crowsus (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

On the same topic, what should we do in case a player is loaned in (by the first team), only for him to be moved to the B team? This is the case of Han Kwang-song, who Juventus F.C. have brought in on a two-year loan from Cagliari Calcio only to be played in the Juventus F.C. Under-23 squad (Juventus' B team in the Italian third division). How should we represent this in the infobox?

Loan only to Juventus U23?
Loan only to Juventus and non-loan to Juventus U23 directly underneath?
Loan to both Juventus and to Juventus U23?

Thanks in advance, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Technically the loan of Han Kwang-song is classed as a trial loan, he didn't join the first team, he is listed in the Juventus F.C. Under-23 squad on the page, so it seems okay to me. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes but my question is: can a B-team loan in players? Or is it a loan by the senior team that then sends the player to the B-team? And if it's the latter, how should we represent it in the infobox? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Young players listed in season pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone

I'm reporting here a talk raised in 2019–20 A.C. Milan season page. As described we are talking about a football team season page: I am wondering wherever it is worthy to list transfers of players of all young rosters. In the prevoius sesonal pages, only Primavera (Under 19) tranfers were listed, mainly because:

Team website is used to announce transfers.
Some players, even if youth, already have a WP page/article.
Players sent on loan refers to society (A.C. Milan, in this case) as the younger teams cannot loan players. In addition, Primavera players are, recurrently, sent on loan in main teams (in lower levels, like Seie B, Serie C, CND, etc.).
It is more probable to have a rookie in main team coming from Primavera, rather than from younger rosters.

This year users went further with contributions and edits, also adding players for Under 18, Under 17 and even lower, resulting in a list also including boys of 14 and 15 years old. In addition, not all above listed teams have a wp article, everything is collected in page A.C. Milan Youth Sector page where only Primavera and newly established Under 18 teams have a section. My suggestion was to remove all transfers of youg players, keeping only Primavera rows, for the above mentioned reasons. Would it be acceptable according WP policies? is there any similar case?

TY Riktetta (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said on the relevant talk page, in my opinion we should either get rid of all youngsters (including Primavera players, unless they actually made at least one appearance for the first-team) or leave them all in. Basically, I think the issue is whether club seasons articles are supposed to be about the first-team only or the club in general. I tried to have a look at other teams' articles, but it's probably the most inconsistent, unstandardized kind of article you can find on all Wikipedia, so it didn't really help. Luxic (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

We should only list first-team players - those who have made an appearance during the season. Some clubs (eg Chelsea) have huge youth teams. Giant Snowman 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Also players loaned to first teams should be kept, in my opinion. Once a youth player is sent on loan to senior temas, I think it can be considered no longer part of "Primavera" world Riktetta (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should only list the senior squad = only players on senior contracts. --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Stadium in National Team infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obviously many, if not most, national teams don't exclusively play in one stadium. Should the "stadium" parameter only have a stadium in case it is the ONLY stadium used by the country for international matches, or even if the stadium is commonly regarded as the national stadium (while not being exclusively used)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2.98.159.140

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This IP user adds a lot of unsourced stats to Brazilian players from the 50s. While the numbers may seem plausible, they are never sourced and I wasn't able to find any details elsewhere. Oh, and apparently every player he ever edited is considered one of the greatest of all time. Which he repeatedly keeps adding. Any help? --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

They've been previously blocked for this sort of thing, so I've blocked them for a week. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Heartland F.C.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've been cleaning up this article for a bit now, adding sources and cleaning up the prose. It's still listed as a Start class - what do I need to do in order to get it peer reviewed, get its quality reassessed, and get tips for improving the quality further? Shockingly never done this before. SportingFlyer T·C 06:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:, He is a master of getting articles to GA and stuff like that, I am sure he will give you some pointers. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

:0. Never been called a master before! Thanks of thinking of me though. I'll take a look at the article when I'm at a PC, I can give you some in depth feedback then.

I wouldn't worry too much about the article rating. If you are looking to nominate an article through to GA, you really don't need to do all the steps, it can still be rated "start class", and have no peer review (I have ~15/20 GAs to my name and an FA, and I never used a peer review on any of them.)

Give me a couple hours, and I'll have something for you. / If you weren't looking at doing the whole GA thing, I've still got a tonne of things that can get it up to B class, should you wish to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Some random guy setting "standard" on adding space between abb.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As far as in know, either FC or F.C. , there is no space between it, however, Rich Farmbrough, based on record, have the following rights: edit filter manager, autopatrolled, extended confirmed user, file mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, template editor, bold move A.C. Gozzano and A.S. Lodigiani by adding space between the AS /AC, which roughly mean sports association or football association. Are there any new consensus i am missing? Matthew hk (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing, I was simply wrong. I thanked you for one of your move backs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

Active Department

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I want to ask. Do club's article really need infobox for active departments like Template:Paris Saint-Germain departments at the bottom of football club infobox? I mean I understand if the club has more than three active departments. But user Novanhans always put it in Bali United F.C. and other Indonesian club, even though Bali only had three active departments and only two that had pages (Men's senior, Men's youth sector, and eSports don't have page). I always undo that contributions because it didn't important to put it there. So what do you all think? Wira rhea (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like them at all. Categories (and a navbox at the bottom of the page) do the same job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Right? And then Novanhans just vandalized Bali United F.C. page before reverted by Path slopu, thank you so much by the way. Maybe he's angry because I keep reverted his non-sense edit. He won't respond to his talk page. And I think he'll back again to vandalized or adding departments infobox. Maybe GiantSnowman or other user had idea how to handle it? I just don't wanna involved in edit war. Wira rhea (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

reverting clear vandalism (which is what is on display here) isn't considered edit warring. If they continue, bring it up at WP:ANI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. Cheers. Wira rhea (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Albert Jorquera

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Tried to source his honours the best i could, his recently added profile of ELMUNDO is from the ongoing 2006/07 season, so it's not useful for the season i am trying to convey (2008/09). However, the reference #9 in his prose (titled "Jorquera, una joya de portero"/"Jorquera, a gem of a goalkeeper") gives him three league titles; problem is he played ZERO SECONDS in 2008/09, so i don't feel he merits the honour even though FC Barcelona's web or Mundo Deportivo (newspaper strongly affiliate to club) give him said accolade.

Inputs please, regards --81.193.141.118 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb is: If they got a medal, they're a winner. Domeditrix (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

With so few matches played i would say the onus is on the adding editor to demonstrate they got a medal and since lists of winning squads are very rare, the best way is a visual indicator with the medal round the neck. Obviously coverage will vary so it's not really fair over the planet, but since we're talking about Barcelona, there should be at least a few photos and videos of the squad getting the trophy + medals, so IMO it's up to the editor making the claim to show the player with the medal. Crowsus (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source required. Primary Sources may be used for basic facts etc but where there are qualifying criteria (such as number of appearances) then ideally a secondary reliable source is required (or the primary source must be the absolute authority). Koncorde (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything to be honest. LFP used to list domestic honours on players' profiles, which I thought would help, but they no longer seem to be doing so. Haven't found any pictures of Jorquera with the medal during the Liga or Copa del Rey trophy ceremonies, at which he didn't seem to take part in the videos I've seen. Best, Messirulez (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Separate Bali United and Pusam article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I want to ask your opinion. I just wondering, if I can make Putra Samarinda F.C. and Bali United F.C. in separate, as this case is same as relocation and renamed from Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. It's just my thought. What do you all think? Wira rhea (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends what reliable sources say. If they consider them to be the same club then you'd only need one article, if not then two separate articles like MK Dons and Wimbledon would be the way to go. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

2013/14 Iraqi Premier League

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

A couple of months ago there was a discussion here about whether Al-Shorta should be listed as champions of the 2013/14 Iraqi league because there were contradicting sources (here). It was decided they should not because we could not verify that the Iraqi FA awarded them the title, and that we should simply make a note of the dispute among sources.

Since our discussion ended, the Iraqi FA has clarified the situation via its Competitions Committee Chairman, Ali Jabbar. First, he was asked to clarify the situation by someone who filmed his response (here), he said: "The championship was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligibility and therefore is considered to be the champion, but not crowned". Note this appears to be someone just walking up to Jabbar and asking him the question rather than any sort of official statement.

Later that day, Jabbar did make a statement to the Almaalomah news agency, presumably to clarify the situation further (here). He said this: "The Competitions Committee had cancelled the Iraqi Football Premier League for the season 2014 because of the occupation of the terrorist group ISIS over a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was nearing completion and Al-Shorta was leading the tournament at the time, therefore Al-Shorta is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season 2014."

Since we were looking for official verification from the Iraqi FA regarding this, I assumed the above was certainly enough to verify that Al-Shorta were named champions by the Iraqi FA seeing as the Chairman of the Competitions Committee unambiguously stated this in his statement to Almaalomah agency. Therefore I was going to make the necessary changes on Wikipedia, however, User:Steel Dogg disagrees with me because he says that in the video, Jabbar saying they were 'not crowned' means they were not champions. My response to that is that he says Al-Shorta are champions twice beforehand so by saying 'not crowned' he was most likely referring to the fact that there was no trophy awarding ceremony/celebrations held due to the circumstances of war ending the league early but that Al-Shorta were still considered champions for the season. The fact he didn't mention anything about crowning in the actual statement to Almaalomah makes it even more likely that this is what he was referring to - if he was meaning this to say Al-Shorta weren't champions he would've mentioned it in the statement rather than saying Al-Shorta were champions. Alternatively he could be meaning that they weren't crowned at the time but now it Is a retrospective awarding of the title. Either way you interpret this, it's undeniable that Al-Shorta is the champion for the 2014 season because he literally said it himself!

So basically I ask people here at WP:FOOTY to let me know if they think changes should be made on Wiki to say Al-Shorta were the champions in light of the Iraqi FA statements. Personally I would be baffled if we were to say on Wikipedia there was no champion despite the Iraqi FA themselves clearly saying that Al-Shorta were champions in the most recent statement they've made on the subject, so I hope we come to a consensus about this. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

From what I have read from you, and if the statements are correct, it's obvious that Al-Shorta should be considered champions (if the people making the statements are people with a certain authority within the Iraqi FA). Obviously I would like to hear @Steel Dogg's opinion too. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Hashim-afc takes one bit of information from there and others from there. The article he mentions is based on the clip from Ali Jabar and if there was any official statement from the FA (which there wasn't) it would have been on their website and their facebook page (check it out, nothing mentioned on July 24). The title champions is based on rankings, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th - and not being crowned champions is clearly said by Ali Jabar. the Iraqi FA had to nominate teams to be eligible to play in competitions abroad which is why Al-Shurta were handed first position, Arbil (2nd), Baghdad (3rd) and Al-Jawiya (4th) - clearly stated in the FA's press release at the time but conveniently not mentioned by Hashim-AFC.

This discussion started in July and I provided evidence in the form of articles, statements and even mentions in a book. Same thing happened in the 1984-85, 2002-03 and 2003-04 seasons. League was abandoned and no winner declared. In each of those league seasons, the IFA decided to admit the leaders to the Asian club competitions and I can't see how it's different in these cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel Dogg (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"The article he mentions is based on the clip from Ali Jabar" - this is a completely baseless claim Steel Dogg. The quotes from the article are different to the video and include things he never even mentioned in the video, plus the article says "Ali Jabbar told Almaalomah". So he made the statement to Almaalomah and is not related to the video.

"The title champions is based on rankings, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th" - where does Ali Jabbar say anything like that in the quotes above? Look at the parts I highlighted in bold. He said Shorta are champions for the season and did not mention anything about final positions for continental tournaments. You put words into his mouth to suit your information. When he said 'not crowned' I already suggested the most likely meaning for this and it makes no sense for him to say Shorta were the champion a few words before and then say they weren't champion.

I already talked about the FA's press releases in 2014 in our original discussion which I linked at the top. The FA's statements contradicted each other at the time, some said Shorta were champions but others said there was no champion. But that was five years ago and now in 2019 the FA through Ali Jabbar has clarified the situation and verified that Al-Shorta are champions via the Almaalomah quote above. What's the point of asking for the FA to clarify it if when they do, you just ignore it and go back to what they said in 2014? (which already was contradictory). Additionally there is the possibility that the FA now acknowledges the title in retrospect so we should be looking at the most recent statements they made regarding the season. You're talking about how the FA statement should be on their Facebook page, none of the quotes you are posting from 2014 are on their Facebook page or their website but are from statements made to news agencies just like Almaalomah so what is the difference? The IFA does not post all of its statements on its official pages as you know very well. The reason this is different from other cancelled seasons is because we have the IFA literally saying that Shorta were the champions for the season.

To conclude, Ali Jabbar is a Vice-President of the Iraqi FA and the Chairman of the Iraqi FA's Competitions Committee, and on 24 July 2019 he confirmed Al-Shorta are the champions of the league for the season 2014. This sentence alone should be clear enough as to whether we should make the changes in Wikipedia. The way I see it, the Iraqi FA has literally made life easy for us and solved the dispute for us. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Nehme1499: for your comment and also thanks to @SportingFlyer: for your comment on my talk page. The consensus here seems to be in line with SportingFlyer's suggestion to add the title to the club and league pages but make note of the circumstances on the season page as it seems Nehme1499 would be in agreement with this too from what said yesterday, and I also think this is a reasonable solution, so I am happy to make these changes. Thanks to everyone for the help on this, welcome any further comments. Hashim-afc (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer: The statement from the https://almaalomah.com is not even an official statement and it comes from the short clip (have a look, it was published on facebook and someone made an article from it). There is no official report. The facts are clear, the league was ended early because of security issues and there were several rounds still to be played (so no champion was named). This is a complete utter joke.

Also why isn't there another source for this article? If this really happened and Ali Jabar stated Al-Shurta were champions, why isn't other news outlets coming up with their own stories (there are none and all the other stories are just copy and paste from word for word and why were they all published on July 24 (after Ali Jabar's clip was posted on facebook????)

Its a paraphrased quote and its not even complete, he states clearly they were not crowned and mentions about Asian eligibility!!!! (considered champions). Also the FA statement in 2014 cannot be separate, as it was the ruling for the decision. Only hours later did the FA president come out and say Al-Shurta were not named champions but considered as first place for Asian eligibility

Steel Dogg (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A few things:

1) You saying the report comes from the video is pure speculation and baseless. The quote in the article is completely different from what he says in the video. Where in the video does he mention about how ISIS had control over a number of Iraqi cities or how the league was nearing its end etc? And, the article says "Ali Jabbar told Al-Maalomah" - so it is a statement he made to this news agency and not related to this video of random people asking him. There's no reason for anyone to believe a reputable news agency would make up a quote and if you do believe that then you should never trust any news article with a quote - including ones you're trying to use for your own arguments. Wikipedia wouldn't even exist if we believed that because this is a source-based encyclopedia!

2) Just because "several rounds still to be played" does not mean no champion can be named. Just read about the 1976–77 Iraqi League, the league was suspended and Al-Zawraa was named champion. Has happened many times in different countries too.

3) Ali Jabbar spoke directly to Almaalomah as the article states which is why they're the ones posting the story, and statement was made 24 July. There's plenty of possible reasons why it's the same date as the video, maybe that's the date the Competitions Committee made the decision and was announcing it, maybe multiple journalists were there asking him, maybe he wanted to clarify what he meant after being filmed talking about it in the video - just because it's the same date it does not mean it's related to this facebook clip.

4) As for the clip itself, he says Shorta are champions in this clip! I have posted exactly what Jabbar says in this video word-for-word above, anyone here can read it for themselves. I suggested what I think the most likely meaning of 'not crowned' means, as he says twice in the video Shorta were champions so not crowned most likely refers to the lack of awards ceremony/celebrations due to the circumstances of war ending the league early, rather than meaning Shorta were not champions. It's strange that you pick on two words from the video and ignore what's before it. Again, he doesn't say anything about not crowned in the Almaalomah statement so obviously was not meaning Shorta weren't champions by this.

5) About Asian eligibility, he says in the video "Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligiblity" (so they were champions of the league and qualified for 2015 AFC Cup). So you trying to make links about what he said meaning Shorta were admitted to Asian competitions without being champions is just you putting words in his mouth. I mean he literally says word for word Shorta were champions, I don't really know what else to say!

6) If you don't trust news stories like this, then all of your quotes from 2014 are also untrustworthy then. They comes from websites like "Buratha news", "Al-Forat news", "All Iraq news" and not from official statements on FA website or accounts, so you are being hypocritical. Plus, the quotes from 2014 were contradictory anyway, as there is a quote at the time saying "Shorta were considered champions and Erbil runners-up" without mentioning anything else. If you claim the later quotes override that one due to being released later, then this Almaalomah quote should override anything from 2014 since this is the most recent statement the FA ever made about the season. And additionally like I said before there is the chance that title can be retrospectively awarded which is why we need to look at the most latest statement instead of ones from years ago. The Iraqi FA can make whatever decisions they want regarding their own competitions that they have organised and aren't bound by certain time period.

7) If you ask my opinion, the thing which is an "utter joke" is when the Iraqi FA Competitions Committee chairman comes out himself to a reputable news agency, says word for word "Al-Shorta are the champions for the season 2014" and you are trying to deny it by making baseless speculation or putting words in mouths. Regardless, I do think the dispute and previous quotes should be mentioned on the season's page, but after this statement has confirmed Shorta as champions, the title should be added to the club and league pages, which so far is what other participants in this discussion agree too. Hashim-afc (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer:

1. It is not baseless, because this video was making the rounds on social media and this is how I know about it. There is no official statement from the Iraqi FA and as you mention or try to insinuate the Iraqi FA does not post official statements on its website and Facebook page which is a false claim. Also this article from Al-Maalomah is not exclusive you can clearly see from the article and the video that the words were paraphrased from the video or do you believe the date of the release of the video on the morning of July 24 and the release of the article hours later is some kind of coincidence.

Al-Maalomah article

 “The competitions committee had canceled the Iraqi Premier League 2014 season, because of ISIS's occupation of a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was about to end and the police club was the leader of the championship at the time, and therefore the police is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season of 2014."
 The video clip
 "The 2014 championship if people don’t know, was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion (the word Batal can also mean winner or 1st place) and went to Asian eligibility (to play in Asian competitions) and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned."
 These are two of the same statements but one is clearly paraphrased and omits the important clarification that the leader of the league were named champions for purposes of Asian eligibility to play in Asian club competitions and “regarded as champions/winners but not crowned,” which confirms the Iraq FA statement in 2014 that there was no champions named or crowned but Al-Shorta were named in 1st place for Asian eligibility to play in Asian club competitions as stated in the Iraq FA’s official statement in 2014 which no one has pointed out nor translated or read.

2. No champion in the Iraqi league were ever named champions with several rounds still to be played, this has never happened. The 1976-77 Iraqi league was ended and not suspended and only the first stage was completed, so the Iraq FA decided with all the teams have played equal number of matches that the leaders Al-Zawraa were named winners of the league. Never in the history of the Iraqi league from 1974 to present has there been a league winner being named with different teams having played different number of matches over a league season.

3. Ali Jabbar did not speak directly to Almaalomah and if on July 24 the Competitions Committee made the decision (which as a committee which only schedules league and cup competitions it cannot make such decisions on its own without the FA executive) and was announcing it as you say there would have been an official statement posted on its website and social media. Also everyone fails to take into account the 2014 decision from the Iraqi FA and its official statement which no one has bothered to read or translate and clearly explains why the league positions remained the same as to make the clubs eligible for foreign both Arab and Asian club competitions, so they named Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad and Al-Jawiya in first to fourth position.

4. We seem to be going round in circles and you yourself seem to be omitting important facts (even from the short video clip, it clearly states they were not crowned), first being the Iraq FA official decision which no one has translated. If you read every statement the Iraq FA has made on this, you will find they have cleared this up over why there were articles mentioning the Iraq FA stating Al-Shorta were champions. The Iraq FA president Abdulkhaliq Masood came out and stated clearly why there was this confusion due to clubs in the top four being nominated for Asian and Arab club competitions (with Al-Shorta in 1st place), but again your articles and statement and explanations take priority even over the organisation which organised the Iraq FA. If anyone wants to know the time of events they will come to understand what happened. There was no champions named but because Al-Shorta finished in first place and were nominated to play in the AFC club competitions, the media at the time claimed Al-Shorta as champions, and hours later the Iraq FA president said clearly “no champion was named” and Ali Jabbar’s statement confirms this “they are regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned.” You cannot name a champion of a league when there are different number of matches played by different teams and winning the league title from other teams is still possible. The Iraq FA named and nominates who wins the league title not the BBC, CNN or facebook, and its own official statement on the day the Iraq league was ended is clear, the positions in the league remained and Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad and Al-Jawiya were in 1st to 4th place in order for them to gain Asian and Arab eligibility in club competitions. There doesn’t seem to be anyone else but yourself arguing about this, and you seem to have your own interests as a Shorta fan and even using your own website http://alshorta.webs.com as a source which no one has questioned. You can argue about this as much as you want, but this Almaalomah article is not an exclusive statement from Ali Jabbar directly to Almaalomah and if there was an official statement declaring Al-Shorta as winners there would have been an official statement from the Iraq FA on this and the Competitions Committee do not make such rulings as it organises the league schedule for the current season when the Iraq FA decision (by the FA’s executive and not a committee) was already undertaken in 2014. I ask everyone to go back to the articles and statements made in 2014 right after the FA decision and also to translate the 2014 FA decision (the official statement released to the media) posted online at the time.

This is the Iraq FA's official statement: https://ibb.co/gPzJw2X

Steel Dogg (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You put the quotes side by side and both are different to each other, so you literally proved my point. You have no evidence that the article is linked in any way to the video or that Ali Jabbar did not speak to Almaalomah and this is just something you have come up with without any evidence at all. I already explained many possible reasons why he could've told Almaalomah on the same date as the video and just being the same date is absolutely not evidence at all. If the FA posts everything on Facebook, where is their statement from 2014 on Facebook? You are posting what the FA said in 2014 from news websites just like Almaalomah. Why should we trust your news sites but not a well-known site like Almaalomah? That makes no sense and is just you trying to conveniently ignore Almaalomah article for your argument. What you said about the 1976-77 league is wrong, six rounds of the second half of the league were played, Al-Zawraa even lost a match from the second stage 3-2 against Al-Baladiyat. The FA cancelled matches from the second half to use the first half table and named Zawraa champions. So yes, there has been a league winner named in an unfinished season. I haven't omitted any fact from the video and clearly talked about the likely meaning of 'not crowned'. The word 'batal' means champion not first place, first in Arabic is 'al-awwal'. Jabbar mentions nothing about 1st place in the video he just says champion. Everything you're saying is about the 2014 statements (which were contradictory - there is a quote which says "Shorta are considered champions and Erbil runners-up" without mentioning anything about Asian competitions, which you ignored), but like I said the Iraqi FA can make a decision at any time regarding a competition it organised and a quote from 2019 takes precedence in the "time of events". Ali Jabbar is not only the Competitions Committee chairman but also an Iraqi FA vice-president and on 24 July 2019 stated to a reputable news organisation that Al-Shorta are champions for 2014. This is crystal clear and not something you can argue without making baseless claims about the article being made up from a video even though the quotes are clearly different. And by the way if you want to call me bias I can insinuate you are bias since you support Al-Zawraa who is a great rival of Al-Shorta, but I don't like accusing people of things. Yes we're going round in circles that's why we've taken it to WP:FOOTY to see what people think, so far people have said they think the title should be added to the club and league pages but we will wait for any further comments if they come. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Indicate the FA official statement on the 2014 decision which I sent you you, it does not mention anything about the Al-Shorta as champions. I will translate it soon for the other Wiki users. Batal can also means winner.

Here a full translation of the FA statement:

"The Iraq FA ends the Premier League and cancels relegation

 The Iraqi Football Association announced in an official statement the end of the Premier League there without naming the champion/winner of the competition and relying on the current table positions  to determine the teams participating in foreign leagues with the abolition of relegation to the second division for this season.
 In a statement, the Iraqi Football Association said that after taking note of all these circumstances in the domestic game, as well as a wide agenda of international participation awaiting Iraq’s national team, the Iraqi Football Association on Wednesday held an extraordinary meeting to examine the conditions of the league and decided to end the competition games for the season 2013-2014 and adopt the results are as per the last round of the competition, and according to the final standings in the league.

The statement issued by the Iraqi Football Association: “As the board of directors of the Union to reach the decision to terminate the league, he expresses its hope to understand the reasons that led to this decision, especially the difficulty of the movement of our teams during the recent period to conduct the games and forced the Iraqi FA to postpone a number of matches due to the difficulty of movement (within the country), in addition to the approaching of the holy month of Ramadan and the inability of many stadiums to conduct matches at night, and the transfer period between two seasons should be limited and allow professional players and coaches to consider staying or moving depending on the league transfer deadline.”

“Taking into account what may result from the termination of the league, the board of directors of the FA decided not to relegate any club from the Premier League, and decided that the clubs pay no more than 70% of the total amounts of contracts of players and coaches by their clubs, which the Iraq FA wishes to play its role In the application of this resolution.”

The Iraqi FA concluded its statement by saying that “it expresses its deep regret and the deep lack of completion of the season, it hopes our football family and all those concerned with the league and our sports media and our public, to understand all the justifications we have mentioned in the decision to end the league with a firm promise that the next season will be God willing, early and exemplary, and fulfills all our aspirations."

It should be noted here that the clubs (Al-Shorta, Arbil, Baghdad, Al-Jawiya), which occupies the top four on the ladder will be the closest to participate in foreign tournaments."

Also the Al-Maalomah article and the video have the same quote, any person can see that

Al-Maalomah article

 “The competitions committee had canceled the Iraqi Premier League 2014 season, because of ISIS's occupation of a number of Iraqi cities. The Iraqi league was about to end and the police club was the leader of the championship at the time, and therefore the police is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season of 2014."  The video clip  "The 2014 championship if people don’t know, was suspended or cancelled and Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion (the word Batal can also mean winner or 1st place) and went to Asian eligibility (to play in Asian competitions) and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned."

The opening paragraph has a mistake in it:

The Iraq FA ends the Premier League and cancels relegation The Iraqi Football Association announced in an official statement the end of the Premier League there without naming the champion/winner of the competition and relying on the current table positions to determine the teams participating in foreign competitions with the abolition of relegation to the second division for this season.

Like I said before, I appreciate your work at Wiki. You did very well at the Shorta section and made it one of the best and up to date Iraqi club pages however I see some mistakes like using the fanmade website (Shorta webs is NO official source) and the league winners. At the end of the day we want to make Iraqi football as complete as possible so it's nothing personal ;)

Steel Dogg (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly this statement you posted is not on the FA website or Facebook but from a news website so there is nothing that makes this statement different in nature to the one Jabbar made to Almaalomah. And the only part of this text about no champion being named is not even part of the statement as it's in the introduction and not in the quote marks. Anyway we already know what was said in 2014, there was indeed statement denying Shorta were champions and said they will only participate in Asian competitions but there was also a statement to Al-Kass Channel which said "consider Al-Shorta as the champions of the league and Erbil as second place" without mentioning anything about only being for Asian competitions. And all these statements were made around the same time after the same meeting. This is why there was confusion/dispute over if there was a winner. Why do you think people are still asking the FA about it 5 years later if it was so clear that there's no champion?

Let me give you a similar example, in January 2017 FIFA stated the previous winners of the old Intercontinental Cup would not be considered as the world club champions (here). But in October 2017 after a council meeting FIFA said that Intercontinental Cup winners are now considered world champions (here). So, are we supposed to ignore what was said in October 2017 just because in January they had said the opposite? No, we take what was said in the most recent statement, that FIFA decided them to be world club champions.

This is similar to the situation we have now. In 2014, the Iraqi FA made many statements on the same day about the end of the league including one which said there was a champion and others said there is no champion. You said there is a line of events and the last statement they made on that day says no champion but now that line of events has a new event from July 2019. Ali Jabbar who is a vice-president of the Iraqi FA and chairman of Compettions Committee comes out to a well-known news site and says word for word "therefore Shorta are champions for the season 2014". Why would we ignore this and go back to the old statements the FA made from 2014? This is the most recent statement and was made to clarify a situation which had been unclear for years and now is clear. The reason why our last discussion ended with the consensus not to list Shorta as champions was because we couldn't verify they were awarded the title - well now we can verify it as the FA have said it very recently.

There is a reason why I don't think people are agreeing with your argument because your whole argument is based off a 'hunch' that this Almaalomah article is some kind of fake and based off of a video just because they were released on the same day, but you have no evidence for this at all and there are many possible reasons as explained above as to why they are the same date. And in fact all evidence points to the opposite because the quote from the video is very much different from the article and the article specifically says Jabbar talked to Almaalomah news agency. You're basically trying to completely dismiss the fact that a senior member of the FA has just stated Shorta as the champions and instead look to older statements which doesn't make sense. Besides, even the video itself says twice that Shorta were the champions and the only way to suggest Shorta are not champions from this video is to put words in his mouth which he never said like when you started adding things in brackets and making wrong translations.

Thank you for your words and I also appreciate your work which I have said many times even before all these disputes. I just wish you would not make accusations on me because that's not helpful or respectful. I don't claim to be a perfect editor but it doesn't take a perfect editor to see that a club should be listed as champions when the FA comes out and says word for word that they are champions. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

http://forum.kooora.com/f.aspx?t=34432842 Translation:

Statement from Ayad Bunyan "In a related context, the Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Police Club considered that the issue of canceling the league was positive for all the teams of the league, but it was negative for his team, considering that the FA did not do justice to the champion of this edition, as they did enough to become champions. He added that this decision is incomplete, but we do not want to go into this matter much on the grounds that the league may develop a lot for the next season, as well as my team will play the AFC Champions League playoff for next season to represent Iraq in the half of the place granted by the Asian Football Confederation." Even he stated they were not champions

If the Iraq FA did announce Al-Shorta as 2014 league winners in 2019 there would have been an official statement and there is none. This is all speculation from yourself. The article I post is from 20 June 2014 and it states clearly from Al-Shorta president Ayad Bunyan that the club did not win the league.

If you have a look at the Iraq FA website/facebook you will see they had stopped posting any statements on their site during those days where they ended the league, however this does not mean they did not release any press statements. Also you seem to refuse any article I put forward as evidence, but this article from Almaalomah is some sort important article which brings something new, which it is not, no other Iraqi newspaper or website has stated or posted an article on this matter and it's clear that the whole statement comes from the short video clip which only confirms the Iraq FA's statement that Al-Shorta were considered as 1st in the top four for Asian eligibility and this is even confirmed by Ayad Bunyan, but as usual you remained to be convinced, because your aim is neither getting to the facts or the truth. Al-Shorta were not named champions in 2014 but only you are arguing it, even Al-Shorta and the Iraq FA at the time explained this and this Almaalomah article is not anything knew nor a confirmation as you like others on wiki to think.

Steel Dogg (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And did you read what the president of Erbil SC said here: "The Football Federation has informed us about cancelling the league and adopting Al-Shorta as the champions and Erbil as the runner-up" Or what the FA said to Al-Kass Channel here: "The best solution to end the tournament at its current stage, and consider Al-Shorta as the champions of the league and Erbil as second place". These are saying Shorta were champions and not mentioning anything about only being for Asian competitions, that's why there was contradiction and confusion about the decision. If I'm the only one arguing it, who are the people asking him in the video? Don't talk nonsense and don't make more accusations about me not wanting the truth when you are literally ignoring a new article from July 2019 with no evidence at all just for your convenience. There's no point continue the discussion because you just ignore what the FA said in 2019 and go back to things from 2014 and even ignore things from then too. Whether you like or not, the FA vice president said on 24 July 2019 "The Iraqi league was nearing completion and Al-Shorta was leading the tournament at the time, therefore Al-Shorta is the champion of the Iraqi league for the season 2014" and therefore is crystal clear with regards to what we should list on Wiki as it was literally a clarification and verification of a previously unclear issue now confirming Shorta are champions. Again your whole argument based off a hunch and no evidence. Like you said the FA didn't post anything on their pages in 2014 so I guess we can't trust anything that any news site said back then(your logic). If you trust that quotes from those sites on 2014 are correct there's no reason to doubt one from 2019 from a similar site. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh and by the way you were saying how Shorta's president said they weren't champions but Shorta's manager Lorival Santos (here) and Shorta's captain Hussein Abdul Wahid (here) were both talking about how Shorta won the league. This just showcases how there was contradicting info at the time. Ali Jabbar has now cleared up the confusion on July 2019 and there's no more doubt. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: @SportingFlyer:

Wait a minute. The article Hashim-AFC states http://altaakhipress.com/printart.php?art=51638 - is all about AFC participation. The Arbil president is stating that the decision to give Al-Shorta a place in the AFC competition is unfair (as they were considered as champions, and Arbil runners-up, i.e. exactly what the FA statement noted, positions are based on Asian and Arab club competition eligibility

Erbil Club calls for a playoff with the police to determine the team participating in the extension of Asia Agencies Monday, 23-06-2014

 Erbil club management demanded a play-off with the police team in case the AFC decided to grant half of the seat to Iraq for the preliminary round of the Asian Champions League for the next season. In the same vein, we have been told that two teams will play in the preliminary round of the AFC Champions League next season. In return, we agreed to the proposal to end the league in return for guaranteeing the rights of participating teams for future benefits. A decision to grant Iraq half a seat to participate in the AFC Champions League extension, we will not give up our legitimate right and demand a playoff game with the police to be held round-trip system to determine the team that will play the AFC Champions League extension, and the Football Federation to clarify the truth of this matter about the number of teams participating in the preliminary round Majid said that Erbil team will not lose any player in the ranks during the coming period and all the players have contracts with them until the end of the AFC Cup, while noting that the management will meet with the training staff to Coordination during the next two days to discuss the preparation of the team for the match Hanoi, Vietnam in the quarter-final games of the AFC Cup.

You just removed the rest of the article, its about AFC eligibility, 1 and 2nd place gain AFC place, Arbil weren't happy and wanted a play-off, why would they ask for a play-off if the Iraq FA already declared a winner (and champion!!! according to you).

Can you explain that?

Admins, this person argues just for the sake of arguing, but his argument is weak, the clip from Ali Jabbar is stronger and looks like the article from Almaalomah omitted the important part of his statement "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned." The argument that this article has nothing to do with the clip does not matter because this is Ali Jabbar on video stating and explaining it in person. His argument that there is no relation between the Almaalomah and video clip is not important.

Steel Dogg (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The quote from Erbil president is "The Football Federation has informed us about cancelling the league and adopting Al-Shorta as the champions and Erbil as the runner-up" - of course as champion Shorta then qualifies to AFC Cup. Erbil president didn't say anything about Shorta being first place but not being champion, he just said champion. Erbil agreed to Shorta being champions as they were told champions and runners-up both qualify to same cup, after there were rumours that champions gets ACL and runners-up don't they said they don't agree with the decision anymore and now want a playoff. Pretty clear from the article. The FA also said to Al-Kass Channel that Shorta were champion as I posted before, hence the contradiction in their statements. This contradiction led to some people believing Shorta were champions (eg quote from Shorta's manager Lorival Santos "The battle was tough and the road hard in the quest for the championship. But in the end it all worked out and I got the Iraq Premier League title. Undoubtedly a very important achievement in my career" and Shorta captain Hussein Abdul-Wahid saying he was won 3 league titles with Shorta ie 2013, 2014 and 2019) others believing there are no champions eg Bunyan quote you posted. So it was an unclear situation. Now in July 2019 the FA clarifies that Shorta is indeed champion and it is no longer unclear. I'm just repeating myself, all you talk about is different statements from 2014 but ignore that the FA just said in July 2019 there was a champion. No point carrying on the discussion right now. We'll see if there are more replies from others but I don't think your argument denying that the quote from 2019 is real without any evidence is going to get much support. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At NO point in the video does Jabbar say "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility". Don't mislead people. He said "Al-Shorta was the leader and was the champion and went to Asian eligibility and therefore is considered to be the champion, but were not crowned" and as I said many times crowned can mean the actual awarding and ceremony of the trophy, it doesn't mean they are not champions because he said twice in the video itself they are champions and said to Almaalomah they are champions. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ali Jabbar clearly says "tabar" يعتبر which means regarded. Your argument is very weak and you seem to be going around the circles and repeating things which we have already dismissed previously. I ask admin to get involved because you seem to be making arguments which are weak. The league is organised by the Iraq FA not Hussein Abdulwahed or Lorival Santos and if you bother to look at the time of events, the FA statement in 2014 and reports from the FA president and FA officials Kamil Zagher, Saad Maleh and Tariq Ahmed who all stated there was no champion named and that the league positions were due to clubs qualifying for Asian and Arab club competitions, but you refuse to acknowledge anything I put forward, even statements from the Iraq FA president being quoted clearly that "no champion was named" and he made his statement on Waar TV and to Iraqi news agenecy, but this for you is not enough. With the Almaalomah article you have not come up with anything new and even your argument on this is very weak. the clip from Ali Jabbar is stronger and looks like the article from Almaalomah omitted the important part of his statement "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility but were not crowned." The argument that this article has nothing to do with the clip does not matter because this is Ali Jabbar on video stating and explaining it in person.

Steel Dogg (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, don't mislead people, he didn't say "regarded as champions for Asian eligibility". Everyone here can read word for word what the FA vice president said both in the video and to Almaalomah agency, which by the way was after the video and a clear clarification and verification of the title. Yes, Lorival Santos doesn't decide the winner but nor does Ayad Bunyan who you are talking about. I posted Lorival quote in response to you about Bunyan to show that there was confusion over the decision. The FA is the one who decides and in July 2019 they cleared up a previously unclear decision and said Shorta are champions. If you like to completely ignore him stating in July 2019 word for word that Shorta are champions for the season, and instead go back to older statements and pick and choose, you can. I don't think others will do the same. Let's see. I won't be responding anymore since I'm tired of repeating myself. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Loan (sports) into Transfer (association football)#Loan)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have proposed merging Loan (sports) into Transfer (association football)#Loan. Please do not discuss the proposal here, but instead at the relevant talk page. Domeditrix (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Round-by-round results tables

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! There's currently a discussion at User talk:Sb008#2019–20 Eredivisie regarding "Positions by round" tables in season articles. I feel the discussion could do with some more eyes regarding these additions. Thank you for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hervé Renard‎ managerial stats

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Can somebody please intervene as @Sakiv: insists on re-adding stats which are partly unsourced and partly sourced to non-RS. Giant Snowman 14:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You're the one who's causing a problem without a good reason. I've added a good, reliable source but you reject all the solutions.--Sakiv (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

May be this is a better source Soccerbase.--Sakiv (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The website you added is not reliable. Soccerbase is fine, but does not confirm all the details you are trying to add (eg goals for/against). If you re-add the table with just games played/won/lost and supported by Soccerbase then that would be OK. Giant Snowman 15:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You see only this article, though there are thousands of articles that lack references. See this section here for example Didier Deschamps#Managerial statistics and Vahid_Halilhodžić#Managerial_statistics.--Sakiv (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and your ping didn't work. Giant Snowman 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Host vs. Hosts - Anyone care to comment?

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying&curid=33338148&diff=915202375&oldid=915199064 Apparently there is only one host according to this editor, not hosts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP is right, it should be singular and not plural when it's just discussing France as the host. Govvy (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: And it appears you have just ran down an edit-war again, you're crusing towards WP:ANI again so you should be more careful than this, it's disgusting how much leeway the admins give you. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, in an edit war. Not willing to be blocked for you lot, so deal with yourselves now, and no, the anon is not right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Weak response, it's always interesting how you use the word host, before a name its host, after a name its hosts. Someone hosts a party. The host of the party is someone. So Walter, it shouldn't be too hard to work it out. Govvy (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In that scenario both hosts and host are appropriate. In one sense they are the first person singular "host" of the tournament (as a nation), but they are also the third person singular hosts of the tournament (as a team). For example: "England were the hosts of Euro 96" (collective team) Vs "England are the hosts of Euro 96" (collective team) Vs "England is the host of Euro 96" (singular nation) Vs "England was the host of Euro 96" (singular nation) vs "the host of Euro 96 was England" (singular nation) Vs "the hosts of Euro 96 were England" (collective team).

When using the singular you would also typically ensure that the noun being used was singular. However "France", just as England, is both a singular and collective noun so has some odd rules (i.e. they exist as both the singular France country, but also the collective France populace and France team). In those case the wikilink on France points to the national football team which suggests the collective use.

For clarity to use the singular it would be better to say "the host nation France". This makes it a definitive singular noun. However the wikilink to the national team is then not appropriate.

In the end it could be argued that the French national team are not the hosts, France is. The French national team are present only as the home nation. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Made an alteration to define as the host team to help diffuse the tension and reverts at that article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Weak response? So when 2010 FIFA World Cup states that South Africa are hosts, they're wrong? And we were wrong to state Brazil were hosts of 2014 FIFA World Cup? And Russia were hosts of 2014 FIFA World Cup. I understand American English like to use "host", that's not the point. In British (and international) English group nouns are treated differently. That's why the Beatles were and U2 are rock bands, while Nirvana was and the E Street Band is a rock band. Go figure. I'll wait until the Brits wake up and they can confirm or deny my statements, but of course, WP:COMMONALITY would be the best option. What shouldn't be too hard to work-out is understanding WP:LANGVAR. And Govvy, please don't talk down to me, especially when you're being so incorrectly smug. Part of the problem is host is being used as both a verb and a noun. The verb here is host and the noun, when using British English at least, is hosts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Funny how you just followed the writing convention I said... I don't know why you are quoting LANGVAR, it's the same writing convention in American as it is in English. host name, name hosts. Using a combination with; is, are, you, can change the spelling from a verb to a countable noun. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately Govvy, I can't fathom out what you are trying to say. The hosts were Brazil. Brazil were the hosts. I am not seeing this pattern you are claiming. To quote your earlier example: "Someone hosts a party. The host of the party is someone." Sentence 1 is stating "someone is the host of a party" and appears to be an incomplete statement. Sentence 2 is stating "the host of a party is someone". Can you clarify. Koncorde (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Host is simultaneously a noun, collective noun and "to host" is a verb which conjugates to "he/she hosts." Sentence 1, "Someone" is the subject and "hosts" is the verb. Sentence 2, host is being used as a noun. (The collective noun doesn't bother us - think "a host of hosts") SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think "host" vs "hosts" really impacts anyone's ability to understand the information presented in the article, and I really don't think arguing such minutia is an effective use of anyone's time. Either word gets the point across equally well. Use "automatically-qualified host nation (France) in the final tournament" if you're really intent on finding something less ambiguous (and don't anyone dare start a nation vs country vs member association argument). -Gopherbashi (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Either word is fine. It's like election/elections – both are used to describe a single election. Anyone claiming that "host" is definitely wrong in this context does not understand how English is used in practice. Whatever term was used first should stay rather than it be edit-warred over. Number 5 7 18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't quit makes sense, Election is a variable or uncountable noun while Host can be used as a countable noun or a verb, which makes the two words operate a bit differently. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Goal_celebration#Memorable_celebrations

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm struggling to see this fun and well-referenced section as encyclopedic. I'm also a bit baffled by how it could ever conform to an inherently POV criterion like "memorable".

I'm sure I could add a bunch of citations for goal celebrations by Norwich players down the years (a favourite) and (a contender for the coolest celebration of a great goal) that I personally find "memorable" but they don't really belong in an encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to have some input from people before I remove a big old chunk of referenced text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Different examples of celebration? For sure. But not 'memorable' ones. Giant Snowman 12:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Most things can be cited. Something like celebrations (sadly) need commentary for them to be worthwhile keeping. If a celebration was front page news for being edgy - sure. If it was a protest that got news, then the protest should have a mention, as well as the celebration. If it struck something in popular culture, sure. Just like a list of celebrations is irrelevant Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks guys, I'm going to delete it all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rudi Gutendorf

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Rudi Gutendorf in the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates was a Guinness record holder having coached 55 teams in 32 countries across five continents.Article needs to be updated.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ask

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So there is a new Nigerian editor (who had been once blocked for violating 3RR) who insists to have flags on team name, and put "qualified for World Cup" as an achievement equivalent to winning the competition, as well as adding trophy graphics, like in Nigeria women's national under-20 football team. I offer many examples but he falsely accused me as a disruptive editor. How do you guys think? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I say yeah, I don't think those graphics are meant to be in the article so I have remove those from the pages. HawkAussie (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Germany national football team results

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments11 people in discussion

We have an issue that is seems like this page has just been copied and brought over to the English wiki which wouldn't be an issue until you realise it's over 500 thousand bytes in size. I've started to attempt this but I don't think this should really count. I'll ping @Schami1989: for his thoughts on it. But what are we going to do with this page. HawkAussie (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At the very least that should be split into three articles- pre-war, post-war and post reunification (I realise it's the same association but that's probably the three easiest points to split it at first instance). Only problem with that is there's already a Germany national football team results (2000–present) but that doesn't meet WP:ACCESS or MOS:LIST. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There was some duplicated text at the bottom and redirected the 21st century results to the existing article. So that has reduced it to 'only' 400k. The creator has enthusiastically reverted the changes a few times, and the history of the article shows it is not the first time well-meaning attempts to improve the article have been undone. I have conversed with User:Ekspertiza and invited them to discuss the article here. Crowsus (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Seperated parts are not same form...and cathing informations in seperated form of articles is more diificult than other...so seperation of table is not way...Ekspertiza (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me when I say this, but sperated is the form, because of these "result" pages are seperated into two to three different article so not make the article too massive. Their is also the fact that their is some useless information that isn't needed here. Like why do we know who the German goalkeeper/captain when their is no indications of who actually scored for Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The amount of excessive detail in the new article is insane. Why do we need to know who the German goalkeeper was? Why do we need details of opponents' penalties (but not any other opponents' goals)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Becouse page's name is GERMAN team's match results... is not any reason of your questions??? Ekspertiza (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because this copied from the German Wiki which has a different style to how we do it here. Over here, we don't that info and may I guide to this page or this one in how we do it here on the wiki. HawkAussie (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)]

Or even better this one, which is a Featured List...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that these pages are good but must other pages be as these??? German team match result page is another style and it is not reason to seperate it for to like other pages (Scotland or Denmark match result) Ekspertiza (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter that it gets divided into three articles, as long as the information is available? The German Wikipedia does seem to like larger articles: de:Liste der Länderspiele der deutschen Fußballnationalmannschaft (source of list in question) or de:Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft. The latter would be broken into a number of articles on English Wikipedia. Jts1882 | talk 10:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well no, it doesn't need to be specifically three articles. The only consistency between national team results articles is that they are split up (unless we're talking the Cook Islands or American Samoa), there's no set standard as to how they get split.

But to answer your question Ekspertiza- yes, other pages should be as these per MOS:ARTCON. It means that information is consistently presented and avoids confusion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that there is far too much info in the table. I'd ditch : captain, keeper, own goals, penalties and red cards as a start. I'd also cut down on the excessive bolding. Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice that the German list, referred to by Jts1882 above, only has 8 columns so I'm going to match that. Spike 'em (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The same user has also been editting the related Germany national football team statistics which again is overloaded with pretty mundane information and many of the lists are far too long (why does it need the 27 youngest and 18 oldest players, for instance?). Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And a complete list of every penalty missed by an opponent against Germany? Seriously???? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Good god. So many useless stats, needs to be trimmed down. Kante4 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"Chronological list of opponent players who scored a goal in the last minute of a match against Germany" is another good one. Why?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As with the other list, Ekspertiza has simply reverted all changes made by other editors, including putting back in the brilliantly pointless "Chronological list of opponent players who scored a goal in the last minute of a match against Germany" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ekspertiza does not accept the consensus formed here. At some point a wider discussion and Admin action(s) may be needed... Kante4 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

noooo you can noooot.....only regretsss --Ekspertiza (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ekspertiza: The problem is you only try and put your opinon instead of consensus that WP:Footy has put in which makes the page worse instead of what are you trying to intend. HawkAussie (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sure John Motson would be proud of a web page of this level of trivia, as that's the level of obscurity this has gone into. I support the culling of the most extraneous parts. Koncorde (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A quick heads-up that Ekspertiza has now been inďef blocked. He/she also created a raft of articles on players which need the poor quality of the English looking at, including Cyril Dunning who apparently "scored a poker" in one game. Literally no idea what that means..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A poker is four goals scored by a single player. I guess the expression is not widely used in English (though it is in Russian, for example) --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that in more than 35 years of following football I have genuinely never heard that expression..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I have deleted all articles created by Ekspertiza, given they have been blocked as a sock (see WP:CSD#G5. If anyone wants any restoring just give me a shout. Giant Snowman 08:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Eduardo Silva Lerma

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Should Eduardo Silva Lerma be sent for deletion? JMHamo (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look to meet NFOOTBALL, has only played in Segunda B or lower from what I can see... Giant Snowman 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To all intents and purposes, he isn't notable but if the appearance for Velje in 2009/10 can be sourced he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither of the current sources have any detail of him playing in Denmark though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and PROD'ed it. JMHamo (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Source for signing for Velje: [1] (edit - also listed on the Vejle "Most matches" page: [2])Gricehead talk 09:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

He played in the first division (second tier) for Velje in 2009/10. That's not listed as a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Famous fans

Latest comment: 4 years ago65 comments21 people in discussion

Per a discussion going on over on the Manchester United talk page, the argument is generally boiling down to such lists as being crufty, or adding nothing and of no significant notability. As such they really should either demonstrate their notability to the subject in some way (valid examples being perhaps Delia Smith, Elton John, Cass Pennant and I am sure others) rather than simply being someone famous who happens to support a given team. My example, for comparison between subjects, is that "famous fans" is like the equivalent of "famous owners" of BMW 3 Series. I am sure it could be cited, but it is of no real significance. Comments and thoughts please. Koncorde (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this page; this comes up like clockwork. (I think this was the last time.) AFAIK consensus is that the fan needs to have have a demonstrable impact on the club; obviously the Delia Smiths and Elton Johns who were directly connected to the administration of the club, but also people like the Proclaimers at Hibs who wrote the club anthem and who significantly raised the club profile. What we don't do is laundry lists of every celebrity who's ever been photographed in a Barcelona shirt. ‑ Iridescent 21:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the FAQ requirement, and thanks for the search result. Clearly everytime it comes up I clearly miss it. I will look at an FAQ'ing template, as they are out there.

I was also failing at searching for the recent additions of Coefficients to some clubs, more ranking cruft not used for anything significant to the club (may be relevant in a given season at best). I know the conversation came up a few weeks back at longest. Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, we are here again, I've wanted to strip Arsenal F.C. supporters for a long time but people won't let me!! I am sure there are more articles like that I don't know about. This list-craft trivia pops up a lot. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, clearly needs a clean up across the board. I have never seen that Arsenal article before but it is genuinely atrocious stuff. I wouldn't even entertain a Category with that weak a rationale for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to have it! If there's a section of fans, why not mention famous ones? It's interesting, it's connected to club identity, and even clubs understand it and make sure to release the relevant pictures. It's part of football culture.

What's more interesting is that while you know that it's common practice to include names of celebrity fans, you support PeeJay in his edit war nonsense, when you know perfectly well there's no reason to remove such info. I mean, how many times has Govvy tried to remove the Arsenal article. I've seen two votes, both "keep", so get the hint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth having a full-scale WP:RFC. I have no doubt what the result would be, but it would put a stop to this once and for all, and give a firm policy-based justification for a mass cull of the "he has been photographed in an Airdrieonians shirt" nonsense. ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems may be the obvious conclusion. Maxim appears not to take the arguments on board. Koncorde (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Makes sense! It's about having a consistent rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lists of celebrity fans of a club have no place in an encyclopedia. You wouldn't have a list of famous fans on an article about a band, and this is no different IMO. Apart from anything else, celebs are notorious for claiming to be fans of more than one club at the same time, changing their allegiance, or even not being able to remember which club they allegedly support *ahem*David Cameon*ahem* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Don't think such lists have a place here. RossRSmith (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, celebrity fans of a band can be notable in Wikipedia terms, but in the same circumstances in which celebrity fans of a football (or any other sport) team are notable; when their support had a demonstrable and documented impact on the band. Kurt Cobain's being a fan of the deeply obscure Daniel Johnston, which created enough media interest in Johnston to turn him into a significant figure in his own right, is an example that springs to mind. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's true, maybe I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I concur that fans who actually had a significant impact on the club itself should be mentioned, but I definitely do not think we should have huge laundry lists of "any celebrity, however minor, who happened to once mention in passing that they support a team", in the same way that we wouldn't have "any celebrity, however minor, who happened to once mention in passing that they are a fan of the Beatles" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To those calling for an FAQ (@Iridescent and Koncorde: et al)- we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus which was intended to be exactly that. The issue is that nobody (myself included) updates it... Giant Snowman 08:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't just declare something a consensus; the issue is that we don't have a clear and unambiguous discussion in which it's explicitly affirmed that "Wikipedia does not care that the drummer from Showaddywaddy once mentioned Barnet F.C. in a 2006 interview". RFCs are a waste of time, but they create something we can point to in future. ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting that other sports don't seem to suffer from this issue. I had a quick skim through some US sports team pages and couldn't find this level of obsession with "famous fans" e.g. nobody mentioned here is mentioned in the New York Yankees article as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's really only a British media phenomenon. We love a good celebrity fan, even better when the celeb is a foreigner who we can fawn over for being so enlightened as to like a given football team. Bonus points if it's also our team. I hear Barack Obama supports West Ham. I've never been more proud to be associated with a club associated with someone that reflects well on the perceived social value that individual grants me. Less interested if David Dickey is similarly a fan however. Although if separated by discrete points in time he might find it interesting. Koncorde (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Has Barack Obama ever been mentioned on the West Ham page itself? If he has I don't remember it. Several clubs have "...... F.C. supporters" pages but they are not articles on the club itself which is what is being discussed, I believe.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I have no idea if the source is accurate.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I would suggest that it covers indiscriminate lists of people on those "supporters of" pages per WP:TRIVIA. Koncorde (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that clarification is needed then as until now we gave been taking about articles on the club itself and not the "supporters of" pages. If we plan to cull those we should specifically say so.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is more about the lists, not the actual articles. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about the inclusion of any "fan" for a football club where there is no narrative or prose, and no significance to their inclusion. That goes for the club article, or any "supporters" articles which are weak subjects to start with (if there is really so much to write about them I do have to wonder how much of it is significant). Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, lets just get this over:

RFC: Celebrity fans

Under what circumstances should a celebrity's professed support for a football team be mentioned in the article on that team? ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Include lists of supporters

If reliable sources mention that a celebrity is a supporter of a particular club, that person should be included in a list of celebrity fans on the article on that club.

Only significant supporters in prose

Supporters should only be mentioned in the article on the club when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list.

Support ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Govvy (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support – Kosack (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- RossRSmith (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Giant Snowman 10:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Drawoh46 (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support FkpCascais (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support R96Skinner (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Gricehead (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support – Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support - Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Jaellee (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Comment What is a 'material impact'? I'll give the example from my club, Exeter City F.C.. We are a supporter-owned club. People can support the majority shareholder, the Exeter City Supporters' Trust, by joining as members. In the early days of the trust, much of the money raised by trust members was used to buy the club. Is it fair to say that a trust member now has a material impact? How about a trust member back in May 2003? Domeditrix (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think in the case of a club like Exeter the ring leader of said organisation may be notable, and in particular the entire entity of the supporters trust itself is notable and should be mentioned (and may in and of itself be notable enough for its own article within which some more notable fans may be listed).

Clubs in the end may recognise certain fans, groups etc such as the JFT96, and may then recognise individual fans, but that should be tackled within the prose / narrative and not just a list of every JFT96 member (nor every single shareholder of Exeter). In fact most shareholders of clubs are not listed directly on the articles as is. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Question - are we considering lists of supporters which appear in the article on a team as well as such lists which might appear in articles on the supporters of the club such as that in Everton F.C. supporters, West Ham United F.C. supporters, Arsenal F.C. supporters and others? --Egghead06 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The wording of this RfC deals only with how named supporters of a team should be "mentioned in the article on that team". I'd understand that as meaning it wouldn't cover separate articles such as West Ham United F.C. supporters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is criteria for inclusion on those other articles then they are WP:TRIVIA in any case. Koncorde (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

But then the "what this guideline is not" portion of WP:TRIVIA does not advocate the removal of such lists, in fact the contrary.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely not "the contrary". The "list" trivia in question is assumed to be notable information, bit not necessarily notable enough for the primary article. It is thus trivia which is generally avoided. When the trivia content is formed (as most Supporters sections have been) then this is a fine example of a Trivia Article. Later it is discussed as;

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all. Trivia that cannot be integrated at all should be removed."

The main policy of WP:TRIVIA dovetails into WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, ALL OF which effectively are existing policy that doesn't require an RFC such as this to be used to identify such extraneous information. Given I have had no idea such a webpage as West Ham Utd Supporters when I contributed the significant majority of content to the main club article and history should convey also one of the biggest issues with forking of content.

"Trivia articles are especially problematic, because their existence makes it much harder to solve the original problem about the relevance of the trivia fact in relation to the subject. Whereas ordinary editors can delete sections of articles, they can't delete articles. Editors can move articles, but most editors will not be as bold in moving articles as they would in restructuring within an article. Compounding this, when an article is split up, it may be hard to get other users involved in discussion or efforts to make improvements: the talk page of the trivia article is often very low-activity, but on the talk page of the main article, editors may not care to address the trivia article. Trivia articles are often abandoned by editors in a way that trivia sections are not: in order to stem the tide of constant trivia additions, editors may simply fork the trivia section out to another page, and let it exist there."

Such forks are thus mostly an anomaly of trying to adhere to one policy, but the subsequent forks running under the radar and giving the impression of tacit approval. Koncorde (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA also says "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." A selective, populated and referenced list of supporters in an article about supporters is not trivial to that subject which is the very definition of a narrow theme. That is the very reason these supporters articles exist, to fork from the main article and expand on a narrow theme.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem arises when you see articles such as Arsenal F.C. supporters where over 90% of the references are for famous fans. The article is no longer "Arsenal F.C. supporters", rather it's a "List of famous Arsenal F.C. supporters". Remove the list and the article shrinks to a small fraction of the size. The list is also not so much selective as indiscriminate, particular when some claims of a celebrity being a fan amount to no more than the person attending a single match at their ground. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that there is not an inherent notability as a subject for being a fan of something. For instance, I like Bacon. Lots of people like Bacon. Many famous people who have Wikipedia articles will have some opinion on the matter too. So do we create "list of bacon fans" in the main article, then when it gets too long fork it into another article in order to keep it out of the main article? Or do we recognise that the initial list is likely irrelevant trivia, and that any forking is therefore indiscriminate.

For example: A subsection on pork about religions that object to or forbid the consumption of pig related products (or in fact a lot of animals but pigs always are the focus) such as Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork may require forking. However this new article is also not a place for an indiscriminate list for people who are followers of a faith that will not consume pork (nor is Faith Bacon).

However the founding fathers of the The United Church of Bacon may be narratively worthy of inclusion in an article about a their specific faith, but you still wouldn't list the potentially billions of adherents to their tenets because that would just be an indiscriminate directory of trivia.

Hopefully that makes it clear. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

People don't generally support Bacon though do they? They don't fly from one side of the world to the other to watch the Bacon Cup Final, play guitars with Bacon badges on them or have the bacon company manager's image tattooed on their legs. Supporters of football clubs do all these things. The problem with the 'it's all trivia' approach is that baby gets thrown out with the bath water. In West Ham's case Russell Brand writes and talks on the subject. Ray Winstone makes videos and does ad campaigns on the team, Cockney Rejects sing about the club, Steve Harris plays instruments with the club badge. These are people for whom the support of the club is significant. By all means delete those names as in the Arsenal F.C. supporters article where the individual's support amounts to no more than a Tweet saying 'hey, bro I'm going to the game today' but dismissing support as all trivial is an easy option. Far more correct, and yes more difficult!, would be to go through the lists and weed out the superficial supporters and leave those where their support has formed a part of their lives. Do we try and produce a proper list or crash out with no list at all? --Egghead06 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point on bacon, but what about fans of the band The Foo Fighters. There are plenty of famous fans around, and some fans will have written books on the topic (that may be used for citations) – but it doesn't extend beyond that. Also, could we perhaps have a backstop of sorts to prevent crashing out? A category (For example, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. supporters) would preserve the information and make it easier to find notable fans of certain clubs, while preventing it from spilling out into articles where that information doesn't truly belong. Domeditrix (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not? We already have Category:Millwall supporters.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's significant to the person it goes in their article. If I am a fan of bacon, that may be significant and notable to me. I might have written books on it. I might play in a bacon themed band. However the idea that this then warrants inclusion as a raw list of people in a football article isn't equally relevant or notable.

Per my opening statement to this whole section; there are opportunities to include significant supporters within prose, but it should not merely be an "X likes Y" inclusion criteria.

Also, you should be careful when dismissing just how crazy people really are. There are millions of people that travel the world each year in pursuit of strange and unusual hobbies (both obscure and well known). That some people somehow seem to think the support of a football team is inherently notable is a massive bias by football loving people. For instance, the World Food Championships host a Bacon World Championship, Australia meanwhile hosts their own. Some of the people create their own websites. Meanwhile it is significant enough to spawn World Food Championships (TV series) and attract skiers to a Bacon Appreciation Day in Aspen. Per the comments by someone else in this thread: this urge to list fans of a particular club is very specific to a very niche part of Wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the very modern way the cull has already begun and list removed from the North London No Bacon article with no consensus or discussion so baby is out with the water. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Unclear inclusion criteria is unclear. If an "in popular culture" section etc or similar trivia section existed, or their notability as a supporter is established then they could find a way of being included narratively. But just a list is pointless cruft. Koncorde (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's moot now. There is no support for lists of supporters and they are being deleted as trivia and after all, trivia is trivial.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Struway2: Why wouldn't it cover the supporter articles, that's still an article of that team, but being more specific to the supporters of that team! Sounds clear enough to me that it would cover the lists, if a celebrity says they support a football club, I'd rather keep that to the "personal" section on their article. If people are really so interested, could always have a category instead of something like Category:Arsenal F.C. supporters. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

All I said was that the wording of the RfC only covered the main club article, which it clearly does. That doesn't stop people extending their discussion to related articles, and trying to reach consensus on what to do with them as well. But I'd assume that the polling above only applied to the original wording of the RfC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment I would consider supporter trusts and the elected chair to be a notable prose as long as it's sourced. As for those list of celeb supporters, from all the supporter articles above, I am taking this as consensus to strip these lists from those articles. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. It could be created but as far as I can tell, of those editors commenting on the supporters articles, they are not covered by this Rfc. That's the very reason I asked if they were.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Question. Have the editors who have been involved in writing those lists been notified of this discussion? The overwhelming consensus against such lists might be because only one side has been asked. Jts1882 | talk 11:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to drop a note in the talk pages of football club articles particularly in the supporters articles (but only those with such lists) informing them of such a discussion. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we haven't, I have just seen it by accident.

The ones to argue against it and start these debate have lost votes on Arsenal supporters article and a few more, attempting to delete them.

Perhaps not that relevant if the supporters articles are not included in this discussion. I guess someone can start a different one on those articles. Hzh (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a part of club identity - Be it Noel and Liam with their famous "Brother" City shirts or Sting taking part in fan protests, celebrity fans are, as the name argues, the famous fans of the club, and it plays a role in how the club is portrayed in the media. What is interesting is that User:Koncorde stalks me on Wiki and reverts my edits. As a new Wiki member, I feel there are a few "older" members who take it a bit too seriously and go on power trips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

1. I informed you in particular about this discussion on the Man Utd talk page when this started in order to head off your arguments about Arsenal.

2. I hardly have to stalk anyone, you are the only one adding these sections at the moment. I am more than happy to discuss the relative merits, but as a new wiki member you should discuss your changes and learn what consensus means, and what the significance of these discussions are.

3. The argument to delete The Arsenal Supporters article is different to removing lists of known fans. At the time when the discussion to delete the article took place it had just been forked from the main Arsenal article a decade ago. The decision was a weak keep with no overarching rationale, and even less actual discussion of what sections would be relevant. But at that time several sections were tagged by editors as trivia. Since then people have continued to dump more and more names in. Indiscriminate lists of people are not supported by Wikipedia. As the suggestions above: go create a category, but know that there are criteria for even those that must be adhered to "people on Wikipedia who support a particular football club" may even then be too vague.

I do not doubt that Sting and Jimmy Nail joining a protest against Ashley is vaguely notable, but it really isn't anything to do with the main club article and is just news. It might have a relevance in individual season articles, or summaries of protests as part of the History of Newcastle Utd. It has less relevance in a "supporters" section of an article and is just an attempt to weasel in a few people. Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Racing de Santander B

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Further input from interested editors please on a renaming request at the above, which was relisted with one support (in addition to proposer) and one oppose. Since the request was originally made, I have updated both relevant articles with several refs to explain the situation. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018–19 Under 19 Bundesliga

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comments from experienced project participants would be appreciated at Draft talk:2018–19 Under 19 Bundesliga with regard to whether it is suitable for mainspace or not.

(More generally, more than 80 football-related drafts are awaiting review at Articles for creation. AfC is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. Many hands make light work!) --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portugal national youth football team

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is Portugal national youth football team a draft or not? If it is, could you stop Nzol12 (talk · contribs) from edit warring? SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be a draft? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, it's not a draft, but there's so much wrong with it. It's not notable; as it's more of a navbox than anything else. Probably an AfD job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Erling Braut Håland protection

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Might be worth protecting Erling Braut Håland for a bit. His Champions League hat-trick, and general form, have made his article the subject of quite a bit of unconstructive editing, mostly from IP's and new accounts. JSWHU (Talk page) 23:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

British 'expatriates' in Britain

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

@Jmorrison230582: has reverted me at Bobby Burns (a NI player in Scotland), staying that "we don't include people moving within the UK as "expatriates". e.g. otherwise every English player in Scotland (or vice versa) would be counted as an expatriate". Is that correct, and if so, why not? Giant Snowman 10:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Because he is a UK citizen who moved to another part of the UK. He didn't become an "expatriate" when he moved from Glenavon to Hearts. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not in a footballing context, where we break the UK down into constituent countries. Giant Snowman 11:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Expatriate footballers in Scotland" is a child category of Category:Expatriates in the United Kingdom (via "Expatriates in Scotland" and "Expatriate sportspeople in Scotland"). It would be illogical to include someone from (somewhere else in) the United Kingdom there. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK - if we follow that logic through, then why do we have French expatriates in Germany if both are EU citizens? (any mention of B****t is an automatic block btw!) Giant Snowman 12:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The EU and UK are not equivalent unions. French and German nationals are EU citizens because of their French and German citizenship and continued status as EU citizens depends on remaining French or German citizens. Scottish footballers are UK citizens and qualify to play for Scotland based on a set of criteria independent of their citizenship. They cannot be expats in the country of their citizenship. Jts1882 | talk 12:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Britain (UK) is a single entity in all interpretations for nationality and, per your passport (regardless of colour), states: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". The term expatriate is usually used for people living outside of their native country - i.e. they emigrated (or are immigrants). As a single entity British citizens do not need to do this.

Now, whether this also applies to places like Gibraltar, Isle of Man etc is another thing. Technically they are British citizens, but those countries crown protectorates or overseas territories which are strictly not part of the UK, so their residents are functionally always "expatriates" from the UK (although they likely come under the concept of a Commonwealth). Koncorde (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with Koncorde's interpretation. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are not sovereign states. Yes, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England have their own football teams, but that is because of historical footballing reasons, so Great Britain is actually one of seven UN nations not to have a national football team. I feel that if we started describing Welsh players in the English Football League/Premier League as "expatriates" then we would be the only source to do this and readers would assume we are just wrong and unreliable. We cannot describe footballers as expatriates when in other contexts they would not be considered as such. So if Gordon Ramsay made it as a footballer and resided in London then he would be an expatriate but seen as he was instead a chef then he is not a Scottish expatriate in England. Those contradictions only exist if we classify footballers within the UK as expatriates.--Echetus Xe 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that British players playing in other British constituent nations shouldn't be classified as expatriates, I don't think moving within the United Kingdom can be considered emigrating. Also, the term expatriate refers to the person's place of residence, and I don't see how we could ever know if a Welshman who plays somewhere like Shrewsbury or Bristol still lives in Wales or has moved to England unless we had a reliable source for his home address! — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. Giant Snowman 15:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Football international goals keys}} - thoughts?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Just came across this template on a couple of women's articles (example). It seems a bit like overkill to me. Hack (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember mentioning it a few weeks back, without getting much answers. Overkill and just not needed. A simple text what this match was about would be enough... Kante4 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree it's overkill - any 'international goals' stats table should not be overly complex and should not require a key of that nature! Please take to TFD. Giant Snowman 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely before deleting the key, we should address the table to which it is the key? Deleting this template will just leave a bunch of articles with a table but no key......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There's less than 100 articles with the template at the moment. Hack (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Def overkill --SuperJew (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is good idea. We often assume the headings are obvious with no explanation, when they often aren't (count the reversions in the 100 PL goal list because the headers are misunderstood). It shouldn't be expanded by default and it might be better placed in a full-width footer row of the table. The template has been in use for seven years and is used in almost 100 articles. Jts1882 | talk 07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Loftus Road

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is now moved to Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium which is one hell of a mouth full, should it be restored to Luftus Road per WP:COMMONNAME?? Govvy (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't see why it should be treated any differently to a stadium with a historic name which is re-named due to paid sponsorship i.e. not moved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't understand your reply... Govvy (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It was moved back. Hack (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

k, cheers, didn't notice that happened, Govvy (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Luqman Hakim Shamsudin

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, WikiProject Football,

I was just wondering if any of you football regulars could take a look at this recently created page and tell me whether or not it meets your requirements for an article. He is just 17 years old and I'm not sure if he qualifies for playing at a professional level. If not, could you tag it for deletion? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

While the player did just move to a professional team in Belgium, he has yet to play for them at league level. For now I would move the article to the draft space and, once he debuts in the league, move him back to the main article space. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dimitar Berbatov retired?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are a couple of sources now which say he is retired, [3], [4]. There are those two sources, but can anyone see a decent source to show his retirement? Govvy (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This from Eurosport from July 2019 confirms he is retired. Giant Snowman 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, Berbatov only official announced his retirement on the 19th so Eurosport got it wrong there. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Publishing

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, hope you're well.

Please may you check out my article for Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. season on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beeney_xx/sandbox&redirect=no . Please may you publish this, it's ready and backed up, and considering the WSL is already two games in, it should be published. Please could you also upload the Lewes F.C. Women season article I have just created. You'll find it here-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeney_xx

Only upload the article for Brighton & Lewes.

Cheers

Beeney :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeney xx (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Beeney xx at Fiacre Kelleher

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

Fiacre Kelleher has two separate spells at Macclesfield - a loan spell which became permanent. They are (correctly) separate in the infobox and should be kept separate in the career stats table. @Beeney xx: is repeatedly and disruptively combining the spells in the career stats table and not listening to me. Can somebody else please explain to them that the two spells should remain separate in the career stats table? Giant Snowman 13:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Beeney xx didn't seem to explain their reverts in edit summaries or elsewhere which is a pity. Disagreements occur but communication is needed to constructively edit in collaboration. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the total row being added. This is what I would expect to see when a loan spell becomes permanent. Numerous examples exist - see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. This was just a quick search, the list could go on. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: a few years ago you said "The totals are only for club spells spanning two seasons or more" in here, what has changed given Kelleher has two one-season spells so far? Giant Snowman 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That discussion was about a player who had only played for a club for one season and played for another club the following season. Kelleher has played for the club in consecutive seasons without playing for another club in between, so it makes sense to have a total row. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And what if he had played for his parent club for 5 minutes after the loan spell but before the permanrnt transfer? Giant Snowman 16:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and if we treat them as separate in the infobox then we should treat them as separate in the stats table. Giant Snowman 15:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The total row does still make sense. Kante4 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you add a 'total' row for a player who played for the same club in (for example) 1995–1998 and then 2004–2006? Giant Snowman 15:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Tbh, yes. For me, like i said, it does make sense. Not sure it would the correct thing to do and i maybe have to re-think such a scenario. Kante4 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well there's recent consensus here that says not to have a 'grand total' like that... Giant Snowman 15:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong, then. Kante4 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A grand total shouldn't be included, but that is completely different. If a player played for the same club in consecutive seasons in 1995–1998 with a loan spell that went permanent, this should have a total row. If they returned to that club and played for them in 2004–2006, this would have a separate total row because they played for other clubs in between. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Again - what is the difference between two separate permanent spells and two separate spells (one permanent, one loan?) Giant Snowman 16:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As this discussion states, two spells physically adjacent in the table should have a total row. This is what I have been trying to explain. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

From 6 years ago? Giant Snowman 16:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The current format of career stats tables was introduced in 2013, was it not? As we're still using the same format, that discussion is still relevant. It is also still included at WP:FOOTY/Players#Career statistics. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The MOS (helpfully) doesn't cover this. Giant Snowman 16:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beeney xx: continues to add a 'total' row despite recent consensus here. Giant Snowman 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

that discussion seems to cover a situation where there is a clear gap between the spells. Situations where a player goes on loan and then transfers to the same club once the loan is over should have a total IMO. Spike 'em (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, why? They are separate spells in the infobox and should therefore be separate spells in the stats table. How big a gap should we have before we include/exclude a total? One game for parent club, one season etc.? Giant Snowman 08:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should summarise the rest of the article, not dictate what should be in it. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). At the risk of getting the article messed up, what is wrong with the stats list at Wilfried Zaha, for example? Spike 'em (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think in the case of Zaha, to have a Palace total row which only included the stats from 2015 onwards would look confusing and wrong to the casual reader -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And as to the "why" : so many transfers these days are preceded by a loan spell (which often have options or requirements to transfer the player at the end), and I think that in such cases they should be regarded as the same spell. The consensus quoted above never clarifies what is meant by "spell". I would say a loan immediately followed by transfer is one "spell" Spike 'em (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

But this was not a loan with the option of a purchase; this was a loan, he was then released by parent club, and then signed for the club he had previously been on loan at. It was not continuous. Giant Snowman 09:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need to be that precise, though? He has played 52 games for Macclesfield since he last played for anyone else, what's the harm in showing that as a total? The infobox already makes it clear that they were two separate spells, but I can't see an issue with showing a total in the stats table......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

From a technical perspective how would you format/display that? Giant Snowman 11:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See the GA that is Daniel Parslow#Career statistics (York City second spell). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Does combining loans and permanent totals not have the potential to cause confusion? Using Daniel Parslow as an example, a casual observer could wonder why the loan in the infobox and table match each other, but for his permanent spell they could read it as he played either 40 or 58 times as the infobox and table have different totals. A Well Fan (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely one of my concerns. Giant Snowman 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There should be a total for the permanent spell (two seasons), and no total for the loan spell (one season). SLBedit (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia again

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Does this behavior warrants a page protection request? And secondly, do we have a cutoff date before which we should use old name? Maybe 12 February 2019, per North Macedonia#Names and etymology? --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left the user a warning, if it continues an WP:AIV report would probably be preferred before protection is requested. 12 February 2019 does seem to be the official "cutoff" date. Due to the flag template system, a lot of pre-2019 articles als

He doesn't learn. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox heights

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The height parameter in {{Infobox football biography}} has automatically converted height from imperial to metric/metric to imperial for a while now, without the need for the use of {{Height}} or similar. However I've recently noticed that it displays metric in cm, whereas our default has aways been m (so 1.85m rather than 185cm). Anybody know why/how we can change it back? Giant Snowman 20:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It uses {{Infobox person/height}}, which without usage of {{Height}} or {{convert}} will display cm rather than m. That has not has substantial change for over a year, and nor has {{Infobox football biography}}.

All of the footballers I've checked (including all those mentioned in the loan spell discussion above) use one of the mentioned conversion templates so show m not cm. If {{Height}} and {{convert}} both use m as default, then maybe the person/height one should too, but would require some discussion there first. Spike 'em (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked ten articles and they all had meters. Have you got an example so I can take a look? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I noticed it at John Marquis; @Daemonickangaroo2018: has added a height template. Giant Snowman 08:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to have the template output m instead of cm (for example at Christian Pulisic) when given the height in feet and inches without a template. I believe this issue has existed since automatic conversions were introduced, I don't think it is an option currently in Template:Infobox person/height. Also, maybe the infobox could force outputting the height in m, even when given cm (for example at Kim Seung-jun (footballer)). @Frietjes: would this be possible to add functionality for? S.A. Julio (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

S.A. Julio, yes it is possible but would require some time work through the code to get the output units flag down into Template:Infobox person/height/switch from the top level (@Jimp: who created the Template:Infobox person/height code but inactive since 2017 :(). by the way, the most recent discussion that I know of on this topic for this project is this thread, are there any newer threads? Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Free kick (association football)#Merger proposal for a relevant discussion to this project needing some input from editors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Enfield 1893 F.C.

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

They have now changed their name to Enfield F.C. as per the FA and the Middlesex FA. Should this now be merged with Enfield F.C.? OGLV (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking Airdrieonians as a precedent, no. Enfield F.C. should be moved to Enfield F.C. (1893) and Enfield 1893 F.C. then moved to Enfield F.C.. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say I am not thrilled about the two Enfields being on separate pages (given the lack of interval between them) but whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources consider them to be a continuation of the previous team, in effect the same club and not a phoenix club, then there should only be one article (I'm assuming they don't as it's already two articles). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a continuation of the original Enfield (the club continued with the same players and staff etc. The FCHD treats them as a single club), so they should probably be merged. Number 5 7 16:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of categories in player articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago26 comments11 people in discussion

As you may have noticed, KingSkyLord (talk · contribs) has removed some categories from player articles, for example, like this, apparently because Geovani didn't play for those clubs at senior level. Does that mean we should remove "Club players/fooballers" categories? SLBedit (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Ummm.... I removed those categories because he never played for those clubs at senior level. Joey Barton played for Liverpool and Everton at youth level, while Harry Kane played for Arsenal at youth level, but both players aren't listed as players for them in their categories. I turned Category:Sporting CP players into a WP:SOFTREDIRECT to Category:Sporting CP footballers since there were only 28 players in that category while the latter had almost 600. Sorry for the confusion, I typically try to finish edits as quickly as possible and don't even bother on writing an edit summary. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am sure I have seen many examples of players categorised under clubs for which they only played at youth level, although I can't think of any off the top of my head. This would suggest, though, that Barton and Kane shouldn't be taken as a precedent, as the categorisation has seemingly been inconsistent across the board. A lot of "So-and-so F.C. players" categories don't have anything on the cat page to conclusively define the scope, and those that do tend to say something like (genuine example) "This category is for footballers who are or were on the books of Newcastle United. They do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club." That text does not preclude players who were only with the clubs as youths from being in the cat - in fact if anything it suggests that they definitely should be included - they were on the books after all...... -- 07:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If a player plays for a club at youth level only they should still be included in the relevant category. Giant Snowman 07:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You would't believe how many people on wikipedia has FC Something player (and I mean senior team category). Politicians, actors, musicians, Gaelic footballers (tons of them), only because they played for some club's youth section in the childhood and it was once mentioned in some interview. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

- There might be youth level and youth level. For instance, Harry Kane was at Spurs from age 11 and at Arsenal when 8 or 9. There is a case for including players going through the clubs academy (16-18), even if they don't play for the first team, while the case for including the clubs they played for as children is weaker. Jts1882 | talk 08:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Should be 12+ Youth career, you don't get given a contract with a football club till you reach 12 years old. Harry Kane should be removed from that Arsenal category, he wasn't on the books at that age. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Was he an Arsenal player? Then the category is valid. Giant Snowman 17:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, technically he wasn't an Arsenal player, to be an Arsenal player you need to join the Academy program at 12 years old, before being 12 is a different program due to FA Law and government regulations. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Use to be 12, seems like they adjusted it to 9 years old o well, heh, I joined the Stevenage academy at 12 all those years ago, couldn't join earlier than that. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tammy Abraham joined Chelsea at 7. Giant Snowman 18:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I feel these categories should be for players that have contracts, on the books at a club. Joining an academy doesn't put you on the books... and back in 1994 you had to be over 12 years old. Now, 2019 it seems the laws have changed around. Tammy Abraham is half my age!! Govvy (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What about senior players who join clubs on non-contract terms? How do you know the ins & outs of every young player's arrangement with a club? We need to keep it simple. Giant Snowman 19:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean trialists? I wouldn't add those. Govvy (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean players who join on non-contract terms... Giant Snowman 09:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

non-contract terms can only be in the non-league or amateur clubs know, generally the categories you are shoving youth players in who haven't played for that club. I personally thing a player should only be added to these categories for senior career, not youth. I think we should avoid adding youth players to categories of clubs. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this, Crewe signed a player on non-contract terms just last month, so clearly professional clubs can still do it. SO if he had an article (which he doesn't seem to) would he go in the Crewe players category? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Govvy - respectfully you are chatting nonsense and have been for most of this. Players can't join clubs until 12, no wait 9, no wait 7? Well which is it? Only amateur teams can sign non-contract players? Apart from all the professional clubs which do? Well which is it? Where are you getting all your 'information' from?

Chris - obviously, yes, if he was notable and had an article he would be in the Crewe players category. Giant Snowman 10:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

okay... things change, just google "RULES OF THE ASSOCIATION" you should get the pdf from the FA doc, it describes the contracts, non-noncontracts, minimum age, registration rules, etc. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion an article for a player should only have a category:FC player added if that person actually PLAYED a senior first-team match for that club. As per example noted by CTD, Sam Booth has not yet played a senior match for Crewe so no he shouldn't go in the Crewe players category. I think for example, Joey Barton should have the Everton and Liverpool categories removed. Perhaps Barton, Booth, etc, should have a category:FC squad added to their articles as an alternative, with the text for that category reading something like "This category is for footballers who are or were on the books of *******. They did not play a first-team match for the club, but may have played at youth/non-senior level or been signed on as part of a squad." That seems to more properly define a person's connection with a club. They are either senior first-team players, or on the books at a less notable level but still connected with club. RossRSmith (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@RossRSmith: That would be a major change to WT:FOOTY consensus. The consensus currently is that Category:Club FC players includes all players on the books of that club, even if they don't play during their time there, while the categories of type Category:X League players is only for players who have played minutes of game in league X. To change that I would suggest opening a more general discussion separately from this which started as a specific question. --SuperJew (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Especially with players like Richard Wright who spent 4 years at Man City as backup goalkeeper without ever playing... Giant Snowman 15:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I usually add club categories for players that have been part of a rooster of any senior club squad, but I don´t add them to only youth teams participation. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Too long , don't read most of the comment. The cat is for the player that had a contract with the club, youth and senior (adult) players. Except some rare case that some Italian clubs for example Parma contracted 100 players and loaned out immediately / sold immediately as co-ownership, there is no point to remove player without appearance. Most of the backup goalkeeper and youth player still trained with the club right? Matthew hk (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. Giant Snowman 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So, Brad Green (footballer) should have Category:Manchester United F.C. players added to his article given that he trained with them in his youth ? RossRSmith (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, because it looks like he was on trial with them for a month. That is not the same. Giant Snowman 08:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

This is regarding this discussion, that I started. Last time, we couldn't come to a strong conclusion, that's why I wanted to re-discuss it again. In some social media football groups and pages (especially Indian ones), I have seen people fight over the AFC ranks. As Wikipedia is the biggest and best source of any data, people use it. They share screenshots of their club ranks and fight. But, the thing is the source of those ranks and all are different. Thus the data it different. And also from previous discussion, I came to know, AFC club rankings existed till 2014. So, from discussion and consensus, can we conclude anything, like whether to put rankings in club articles or not; if rankings are kept, it should be from a single source. I don't want people get any wrong information from Wikipedia. অর্ণব S a h a 11:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As much as I like these kinds of rankings and statistics, the AFC does not have any official ranking for clubs, only for leagues and countries. Therefore, either we remove them altogether or put a note explaining that these are "unofficial" rankings based on AFC.com calculations. Btw I'm talking about this website specifically. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are talking about adding them at the end of each season, then they could be added with a source and discuss it's unofficial stance. However if we are on about running a blow by blow ranking, updating week on week etc then the answer is obviously "no" as we are then fundamentally replicating an unofficial third party set of data. I am not a major fan of even coefficients and the recent trend of putting club ranks from Europe in articles. It's just another dick waving competition. Koncorde (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: for most of the club articles, ranks are updated after each season. but the thing is, there is not only 1 source. there are 2 (as much as i know) footyrankings and footballdatabase. and both show different stats. this only creates problem.
@Nehme1499: ya, none of them are official. and there should be anyone source. either footyrankings or footballdatabase

অর্ণব S a h a 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case unless it is adopted and / or standardised then it is pointless. Koncorde (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: yup. footy rankings seems more legit and updated. while footballdatabase is old. but it shows world ranks, continent ranks, country ranks... 15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Remoced it see here. Having footy rankings as an external links seems fine though. -Koppapa (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koppapa: so, this thing can be done. only keep footyrankings in articles, and no other sources.

অর্ণব S a h a 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koppapa: @Koncorde: @Nehme1499: So, can we come to conclusion now? অর্ণব S a h a 09:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

everyone, please give final opinion.

অর্ণব S a h a 04:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Shall we conclude this discussion. Again this time, the discussion is ending no where. অর্ণব S a h a 18:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the answer has been given. The ranks are unofficial. They mean very little. They are not what we would consider reliable content. They are artificial. We do not lend credence to popularity contests, and ideally would prefer a secondary or tertiary source discussing these ranks rather than the non notable primary source (unless someone can demonstrate that they are reliable and used for the purpose intended in reliable sources). Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: so better we remove football database ranks, and keep only footyranking in the articles...

অর্ণব S a h a 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We should not use footyrankings.com as a source: it has lots of links back here to explain what it is doing, and it's list of references is empty. It looks distinctly WP:UGC 16:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Per above, purge and burn. It's pointless primary sourcing of unofficial statistics not used by any agency. www.optasports.com is a professional company that does the same sort of work for players, clubs, leagues etc, but we don't use their artificial rankings either. Koncorde (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: ok then. its better to remove those unofficial stuff. no information is better than wrong information. what reason to put in summary. can we have any link to this discussion (like WP:___ something like this.)

অর্ণব S a h a 17:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cite WP:UGC and lack of supporting secondary sources establishing notability, accuracy, or relevance. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...

অর্ণব S a h a 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Premier League

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi guys.

A couple of weeks ago we had a discussion around the Iraqi League title. Some fans and media claim that Al-Shorta won the league title in 2014 while the competition was cancelled. The user thinks that he 'won' the discussion and he edited the page.

My question: Is there any Wiki Admin who speaks Arabic and can help us further?

Steel Dogg (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Steel Dogg: In the original discussion in July you started removing Shorta titles after only one person had replied to say that was their opinion. In the latest discussion two people including one who was originally on your side said that Shorta's title should now be counted. So can you explain how was there an outcome for the first discussion but not the second discussion? You're really becoming disruptive now. I respected the consensus of the first discussion in July and you have to do the same now, that's how Wikipedia works. The whole point of discussions coming to consensus is to avoid edit wars which you continue to cause. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As a note - no one "wins" a conversation on Wikipedia. Admins won't help you out, you would need a new consensus for it to be different. (It might also be wise to link to previous discussions and the edits made to the page to explain the issues.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I never said that I won anything I'm just talking about the consensus that was reached. In July the consensus was that Shorta's 2003 and 2014 titles should not be listed in Wiki - I respected this outcome and did not make any edits to oppose this. Now we had a new discussion after more evidence about 2014 season came out and the consensus was that the title should now be listed for Shorta. So I made these edits and expected Steel Dogg to respect it just like I had but nope, he continues to make disruptive edit wars and not respect the discussions. A shame and I hope he will stop that especially because he is a great editor for other Iraqi pages. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

First discussion: here

Steel Dogg edit in response to outcome of first discussion: here (only one person had given their opinion at this time and the discussion was still going, but he said there was already an outcome)

Second discussion: started here on my talk page then continue here

My edit in reponse to outcome of second discussion: here (I waited until the discussion was finished and in the archive before making the edit)

The discussions served their purpose and outcomes are clear, they should be respected and there should no longer be any edit wars. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Portugal national football team

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like recently blocked IP address 2001:8A0:6A12:3C00:81EC:62EF:3A1C:82F2 (talk · contribs), aka Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) (aka Martimc123 (talk · contribs)), is restoring its own latest edits in Portugal national football team. SLBedit (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Barnes Nationality

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have made the changes based upon the discussions at WP:FOOT in June 2019 and August 2019. The outcome was clear that in the absence of his ability to represent Austria, and his lack of citizenship of that country, we must revert to the known eligibility criteria which is reported in sources that he is British, and eligible to represent England only. Koncorde (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, friendlies are not official competitive matches as he did 11 years ago. Iggy (Swan) 09:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have chased his nationality back through to 2010 season articles etc but if anyone else see's another reference to it please update it. Thanks. Koncorde (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

11v11.com

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all

A quick question about the website 11v11.com... is it usually considered a reliable source for football articles on Wikipedia? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dam Chris, is there no way to source that article you pointed out? Govvy (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that occurred to me too. I don't doubt what Chris said above and its been useful to me for a few things, but the article on the association needs a bit of verification! Crowsus (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1) Template:FC Barcelona squad and 2) Carles Pérez

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

1) I see the readdition of unsourced content by having 26 Pena, 27 Pérez and 31 Fati on there. I had removed that because these names are not on the official Barcelona website which therefore can be seen as unsourced content to the template. Administrators, do you agree that this content should be removed for unsourced content?

2) I have never seen something like "Barcelona/Barcelona B" or "27/10" in an infobox. In the case of Martin Ødegaard, I see that, although he played with both the seniors and the B team for Real Madrid, the article did not have two numbers for the infobox. I think I should agree with User:Fcbjuvenil ((User talk:Fcbjuvenil)) on this one. Iggy (Swan) 09:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it depends on what squad they're playing with at the time. Pérez and Fati are having a run with the seniors at present so it would be appropriate to show the Barcelona squad number and template, that may not be sourced by the club but I don't really see how it can be ignored that they are in the squad when they have played in several matches. If and when they go back to playing with the B team more regularly, that should be shown. I would recommend the appropriate B team info being hidden for easy switching as I have seen with loan players. I also haven't seen both displayed at once before and it looks crap. Crowsus (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with your last sentence. With the case of Pena, he has not yet played a senior Barcelona match and has only made apps for the B team. Iggy (Swan) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Iggy the Swan ((User talk:Iggy the Swan)), Peña has never played for the first team, just been on the bench in a few games. Already Pérez and Fati have been playing, but are registered with team B (Pérez) and Under 19 (Fati), according to the club's official website. For Barcelona, they are not main team players. I think the decision cited by the club should be respected, and the three have no professional contracts with the core team. Another issue is that in the article FC Barcelona, the borrowed players were removed, and there was already consensus that they are listed there, as they are players of the club. As for Pérez, he is either a player on team B or the first team. The way it is (with both) is confusing and there are no other examples. Fcbjuvenil (talk) 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'd say it's a confusing way to display it as well. Speaking of professional, with the immediate below section, Fati is not yet 17 and has not got a pro-contract yet unless the rules are different in Spain. I may assume he is not yet a professional footballer until he turns 17 at the end of October. Iggy (Swan) 14:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Myself and @Zahin346: have hit a bit on an impasse at Cristiano Ronaldo. The user has stated they believe that "All of his goals and assists should be listed here" and has been adding some information I believe is of questionable relevance. The user has now simply started reverting, claiming "Keep undoing my works and I will keep undoing your undoing", and calling me a "hater". Could another user or two review the situation and offer any assistance? Cheers. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This kind of follows a similar pattern with Barcelona's Carles Pérez and the Barcelona squad template upon content dispute. This one I had put four points of view on Kosack's talk page saying about the non-notability and unsourced content which has problems of it's own. What I said was this:-

1) Every goal scored by any striker like the Portuguese player would result in at least 1 million bytes to articles whose subject scores plenty.

2) I do not see a 53rd career hat-trick in the source given and I can't think of any notability with this.

3) In Euro 2020, the opening "two matches against Ukraine and Serbia" sentence, this does not directly relate to the player before the injury is mentioned.

4) Not every goal would be notable. With that Serbia 2–4 Portugal result, the third Portuguese goal did not change the result and they were in the lead for all of the second half. Also that was too early for qualification to the finals.

In the case of point 2, I've checked the source carefully. With point 1), this probably results in the template:include size errors which the article has received this year. Iggy (Swan) 11:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The whole point with Wikipedia is that you should be able to read the article after the fact and not feel like you are going through a laundry list of results and goals scored. That is tiresome and bid writing. For instance a paragraph on Rinaldo's 2015 season might read "on x he scored y against z, and on xx he scored yy against zz. He followed this up with xxx on guy against zzz". It's pretty much what happens in a lot of articles because they are written in a very short timescale leading to micro-penis sized content updates.

It is therefore more appropriate to say "In 2015 Ronaldo scored x goals, helping X to win Y. He scored winning goals in X matches, including two goals in the X final to hand X their nth win in X trophy". This would summarise the main information into its most important and notable elements.

If you see an article that is straying into version 1 it is always better to imagine how the paragraph will look at the end of the season and how you can best represent that information a la version 2. We should also, ideally, not be synthesising content and would be looking for sources that outright provide the information, and we should also not be attempting WP:CRYSTALBALL with the significant of particular goals. Ronaldo scoring against SPAL is only significant if either Juventus win the league by 1pt or similar for instance, especially if it was perhaps his only goal of the year, or in a particularly significant match. However as we will expect him to score in 80% of his matches this season, referencing each one as if it is the most important goal to date is utter drivel that we should avoid. Koncorde (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That should be kept in Zahin346's mind. Iggy (Swan) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems we are all now Messi fanboys! WP:NOTADIARY is a clear policy to quote at times like these. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm having similar issues with @Beeney xx: at Robert Sánchez - we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. Debut game/goal? Great. Other games which are commented on in significant detail by the media (such as a cup final or famous giant-killing etc.)? Great. Every single goal/game/assist? No chance. Giant Snowman 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Zahins behaviour has continued. Have now warned and added template to his talk page. He is no longer engaging at talk page and leaving inappropriate edit summaries. Koncorde (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that the user has been rightly blocked for edit warring, perhaps attacking other recent editors with an unintentional pun in the edit summary. Hopefully that would be a lesson learned in this serious edit war about the WP:NOTADIARY and notable/non notable content. Iggy (Swan) 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Luke Matheson (footballer)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I see that in the lead has been shown as "an English professional footballer" but I do see that he is not yet 17 (but he will be in just a few days time. From the BBC Sport website, I have read that he is still at school^[1] and has not yet become a full time footballer. An example of the word professional not being there in an article is Harvey Elliott who is younger than him. These footballers are not offered a professional contract until they turn 17 when they have their traditional salaries. Iggy (Swan) 09:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49834275

Removed. Daresay they will give him a contract as soon as he turns 17 even though he's still at school, but until they do, he indeed isn't a professional footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

When the news comes to say he has signed a professional contract, this shall be back in. Thank you, Iggy (Swan) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also spotted that at Ansu Fati of Barcelona unless the rule is different in Spain re professional contracts. Iggy (Swan) 14:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:FAI Under 16 International Player of the Year

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Views on {{FAI Under 16 International Player of the Year}} and {{FAI Under 17 International Player of the Year}} (both just created by @Supersaints2014: before I TFD them? Giant Snowman 10:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an article on the awards and most of the recipients are blue-linked so I don't see a problem with the templates...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that the article looks well-referenced. Also don't see a problem with the templates. --SuperJew (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Giant Snowman 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Elevation in Infobox venue

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

An elevation parameter (|elevation=) has been added to {{Infobox venue}}. Is this something we should add to football stadia. Is it useful or just more clutter? I know questions like what is the highest elevation stadium are popular in pub quizes and where do people look for the answers? Jts1882 | talk 14:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that it adds anything useful to the article, and it may only confuse people as to what it means. I was in fact slightly flummoxed when I read what you added for for Tottenham Hotspur Stadium which is 11.530m and misread it as 11,530m (giving a figure to the nearest millimeter does not seem right since it can never be that accurate.) Someone might also read it as the height of the building, and it may be legitimately asked why the height of the building isn't given. Unless the stadium is located in an unusually high place, I don't think anyone would be interested to know the elevation of the stadium. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For all I know, people could read how high the ground is above sea level!! Govvy (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox venue appears to be a catch-all now, and elevation is certainly important for certain types of stadiums such as baseball (see Coors Field). I don't see any harm in adding in elevation if properly sourced for football-specific stadia, but I think it can otherwise be ignored safely. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall that a few World Cups ago there was a buzz in the media about teams playing Ecuador away having a disadvantage due to the high elevation in Quito. But apart from specific cases such as that one, I don't think there is any point mentioning the elevation. --SuperJew (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Even so, this could be better explained in text rather than by adding clutter to the infobox. Context is important in explaining whether altitude is a perceived issue (or quality of) the stadium – the infobox strips away all such context. An elevation of 800 metres may sound high to many people in Britain and the Netherlands, and so adding just an elevation parameter to Helmántico Stadium in Salamanca (802 metres) may create a misleading impression rather than informing users. In my view, elevation should only ever be added to the infobox where its inclusion is also justified and warranted within the prose (and does not result in WP:CRUFTy content). Domeditrix (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, should you be recording the ground level of the stadium or the top most part or the top most seat? The documentation is terrible and doesn't explain which we are suppose to be doing with the parameter. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, context is important. Elevation for baseball stadiums typically gets measured at the level of the playing field, football stadiums would be the same. Elevation isn't really discussed for football stadiums in England - see the opening line here: [5] That being said, we are an encyclopaedia, and if we can find a reliable source discussing the elevation, why would we not include it in the infobox? We can't assume it's useless for everyone - it's certainly of general interest to me. SportingFlyer T·C 10:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is where do we draw the line? If every time someone suggests a new parameter, we assume it's not useless for everyone and put it in, the infobox will just grow and grow. Some people may be interested in whether or not a stadium sells pies, but I wouldn't suggest we put it in the infobox.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Given an infobox is to summarise article content, not replace it, then the param should really only be used if the elevation is mentioned in the article itself. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. So articles on the Andean stadia (e.g. Estadio Hernando Siles atadium in La Paz) that international teams hate visiting would have this mentioned in the article (in a more neutral manner) and then the parameter is appropiate in the infobox. The Hawthorns mentions it's status as the highest English league club stadium in the lede, so could also use the infobox parameter. If there is nothing notable enough about the elevation to mention, then it doesn't belong in the infobox either. Jts1882 | talk 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Outfield players who went in goal

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion

Having watched a video last night of Vinnie Jones going in goal against Newcastle after his keeper was sent off, and being aware of List of goalscoring goalkeepers and Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored, is there any scope for an article/category for outfield players who went in goal? A Google search shows plenty of coverage... Giant Snowman 15:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems crufty, but I could understand why someone might be interested. Koncorde (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, seems the sort of thing this page usually dismisses. That said, I'm surprised the page doesn't exist. It certainly has a the good, the bad and the ugly potential. Niall Quinn saving a penalty, Hary Kane and Rio Ferninand making a hash of theirs. Jts1882 | talk 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, sounds a bit trivial. I'd be happy to add to any created list/category of players who meet this criteria.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess if we can categorise Pat Jennings by something he did once in a career of over 1000 games, we can categorise someone like Gillingham legend Joe Dunne by the fact that he once did the reverse...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the thing that never gets onto match reports so such category would be extremely skewed towards British players due to sheer amount of press coverage, while many other players will remain uncategorized. --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, there's probably enough support for an article. What should it be called? I'm happy to start it when I have free time after the weekend. Giant Snowman 07:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Outfield players in goal. Make sure that as well as the usual familiar faces like Kane and Terry in the EPL, you also give due credit to Mia Hamm in goal for the US against Denmark at the 1995 Women's World Cup and keeping a clean sheet. ‑ Iridescent 08:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Outfield football players in goal.--Echetus Xe 12:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

EchetusXe has best proposal so far, though it likely should be "Outfield association football players". Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Konkorde´s seem most accurate title. Great initiative btw. FkpCascais (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions @Iridescent, EchetusXe, Koncorde, and FkpCascais: I've gone for List of outfield association footballers who played in goal (and Category:Outfield association footballers who played in goal) - assistance with expansion would he appreciated. Giant Snowman 12:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of any Port Vale outfield player to go in goal, but this list seems helpful.--Echetus Xe 12:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we already know this will be skewed towards the English leagues, we have a List of outfield players in goal in the English football league, or similar. There would be predujice against other leagues; but this would be a defining list, rather than one with infine scope. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There's already examples from outside England. Giant Snowman 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the most notable examples are from outside England—Cosmin Moți ending up in goal for a Champions League shootout and going on both to save a penalty and score one is an obvious example. I agree that before anyone starts on a list it would be worth deciding what the scope of it will be, as I imagine that especially before the invention of substitutes, there will be literally hundreds of cases from the 1930s Belgian Third Division, the North West Leicestershire Women's League, and so on, which got enough of a mention in the local news that they can be documented to have happened, but which no reader is realistically going to be interested in. (The scope isn't as straightforward as it sounds—something like "match in the top flight, a continental competition or a full international match" would exclude something like Jackie Blanchflower in goal for the 1957 FA Cup Final which obviously needs to be included.) ‑ Iridescent 15:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There are obviously dozens of these but shouldn't the goalkeeping event be mentioned in the article before we add this category?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, it should be mentioned in the player article as well. Giant Snowman 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

An aside, I have added about 10 links in the talk page which are mostly lists of more players, might save someone a bit of time if they want to contribute. For those who tend to focus on the club they support, I've also spotted a few teams have fan forum topics on when this happened at their club (so it has probably been brought up on every forum at one point), the forums won't be sufficient evidence themselves but should be a good basis for checking match reports, biography articles on here etc for firm referencing on this happening to add to the new list. Crowsus (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on Alexandre Pato

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This sock is at it again on Alexandre Pato, this time as Special:Contributions/109.152.199.131. Iggy (Swan) 14:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So the issue is the piping of São Paulo FC to hide the FC? Can I ask why the FC apparently needs to be shown in the lead when it isn't shown anywhere else in the article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the main issue, that is to do with the edit warring and block evading by the sockpuppet. I've seen in the articles with the player's club that the rest of the players have the lead display as "São Paulo FC" but the sock thinks hiding the FC on just the one article "by consensus". It is a bit odd to have that one player having the persistent changes between one version and another. Iggy (Swan) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is the puppet master? Giant Snowman 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is User:AH999 of which User:Fcbjuvenil claims in the edit summaries along with User:GARY 809, which User:Mattythewhite suspects it is AH999. One of the clues from Special:Contribs/ChocolateRabbit in a small number of edits was quoted "We pipe the fc". By checking the IP range over this year's contributions, there has been some form of edit warring and block evasion. Another two IP ranges have also done that, one only on 26 July and this month. (ChocolateRabbit has been confirmed by a checkuser as a sock of AH999.

On User talk:Iggy the Swan, there is a bit of commentary between Fcbjuvenal and myself about the vandal, the new messages are on there during the British nighttime. Iggy (Swan) 15:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Two-legged match details question

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any kind of consensus regarding using this format of two-legged match details over this one, or vice versa? --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion here a while back which decided matches should be grouped by tie, not first/second legs. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the "this format" link is a clearer way to determine who won on aggregate. The "this one" link finds readers all over the place as to which team they're following. A Celtic fan would be scrolling on the article to find out if they'd progressed to a further round or not. I also see the matches between both legs are in different orders, making it harder to find their team. The "this format" link is much better for reading. Iggy (Swan) 20:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Goalscorers

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Any reason why the Goalscorers template adds a line break after "goals per match." here but not here? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The different is that one case has |1 goal= and the other doesn't. For some reason the template inserts a {{clear}} before the list and if |1 goal= is missing or empty this is not inserted, causing a lack of a new line.

I actually encounted the problem yesterday at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF). I did a temporary fix by using the sandbox version of the template. This uses the Lua module version that was written to use stored data pages to generate the lists for multiple articles. I need to finish checking that it works for all the options when it uses parameters for the data before making the upgrade. Jts1882 | talk 16:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Age group WCs

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

These are frequently vandalised by ips and stay wrong for days on end sometimes. ClubOranje^T 10:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? I can look at protecting, or alternatively you can make a request at WP:RFPP. Giant Snowman 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:FIFA U-20 World Cup tournaments, Category:FIFA U-17 World Cup tournaments. This is what pending changes was made for. They hit a different one every other month and have done for several years, changing team names every day or three. 2007 event has been having this since at least mid 2011. 2017 latest playpen. RFPP only care if it happens 10 times a day, not 10 times a month. Besides, I don't work here any more, just thought a football purist might care. ClubOranje^T 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

GS or other project colleagues, here is one example of CO's concerns, please look at and fix the inaccurate content of knockout/bracket stage of 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Am convinced that if I and my lack of tech expertise had a go at it, the table would be thrown awry and look even worse ! RossRSmith (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, these edits happen since years. The whole bracktets are changed. Randomly pops up on my watchlist. Always the same type of edits, always a different ip. -Koppapa (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

List of football stadiums in England

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This article used to list all the stadia for clubs in the top five tiers of English football, including the Welsh clubs playing in the football league. Relatively recently an IP editor removed the Welsh clubs with this edit and a misleading edit notice. The lede still says all the clubs in the top five tiers are listed.

Now logically the title does exclude the Welsh clubs so I see three options:

Restore the Welsh club stadia and note explaining why the Welsh clubs are included. This is the long-term status of the article (i.e. the status quo ante).
Restore the Welsh clubs and change the title to something like List of football stadiums in English football.
Exclude the Welsh clubs and add a note to say they play in the league but aren't listed.

I think the Welsh club stadia should be included so that the stadia in top tier English football are complete. I also think moving the page is overly pedantic. The way it was was fine for years. Suggestions? Jts1882 | talk 16:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Under the current heading, the inclusion of Welsh clubs makes no sense. I would say option three is the best solution given that the stadiums are the actual subject of the list and not the clubs. We have List of EFL Championship stadiums and List of Premier League stadiums which document the actual leagues. Kosack (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Well we don't technically have List of football stadiums in Wales, but we do have List of stadiums in Wales by capacity, to which it redirects. It wouldn't make sense for stadia to be listed on both..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think any option is fine. The title of the article reads geographically, though, so by that count we should exclude Welsh stadiums, making option 1 less desirable - but I think we need to serve the majority of readers who would want Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, and Merthyr Town included in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the Welsh club stadia should be included on an article related to English football. When the table includes the rankings within the different divisions, it is absurd to omit some members of that division. The change was made by an IP editor with a misleading edit notice, so I think we should go back the the status quo ante while discussing if a page move is desirable. Another title option is to List of football stadiums in England and Wales (as the football has always had overlap, unlike Scotland's separate system). For precision, a page move is best, but I don't think the inclusion of Welsh club stadia was causing any confusion under the current title. Jts1882 | talk 06:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Cunningham

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Should the article Michael Cunningham (footballer) be deleted as the only appearance he has made for Dundee is as a substitute against Peterhead (a part-time team) in a League Cup match? A Well Fan (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we class the Scottish League Cup as professional? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY requires a player to have featured in a match between two teams from fully professional leagues. As Peterhead are from Scottish League One , Cunningham wouldn't meet that requirement. If you can show there is significant independent coverage of Cunningham in third party sources then he could be notable under WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Previously deleted by PROD so should be taken to WP:AFD. Giant Snowman 12:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Jellyman (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-German IP vandal is back again

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remember this guy? He strikes again. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Giant Snowman 20:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Put a little TLC into the WikiProject Football portal today, updating some articles and adding a section. (I know portals aren't used much and can be a bit unloved, but I like them.) Noticed most of our featured articles are from England, the USA, or occasionally Australia, and only two World Cup articles have been featured. Does anyone have any interest in working together to adopt an article from a non-English speaking part of the world and getting it to FA status, perhaps a major South American or Asian club or national team? SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

While most certainly not major, I was intending on nominating the Lebanon national football team for FA in the near future. The only information missing is some prose in the “Competitive record” section which I am intending on adding sometime in the following months. If someone wanted to help me out I would greatly appreciate it! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I need to keep going, but I've added some prose. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Thanks for your help! I was thinking of doing something like the Belgium national football team where each competition has its own prose above the competition/qualification table, so that all the information in said table is sourced. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I had made an attempt at re-writing and citing 1966 FIFA World Cup, intending to get it to GA status, but it's quite a bit of work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Football articles tend to be a little light on willing reviewers in my relatively short experience of FAC, which does hinder the situation slightly. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm always worth a quick ping/talk page message. I'm quite happy to take a look if I have enough time. I have minimal FAs, but I don't mind working on/co-nominating if people are interested in that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, MLS Cup 1996 (the first one) is currently at FAC and needs feedback. It'll be part of a Good topic I'm piecing together on MLS Cup finals, which is now over halfway complete. I think I nailed down the formatting at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup and it could serve as a useful template for future GANs and FACs on tournaments; I plan to nominate 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup with a bit more work and 1994 FIFA World Cup when I can completely overhaul it. Sounder Bruce 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2002 or 2003

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can some of you shed a light on a bit of Slovene football history? User:Snowflake91 states that NK Korotan Prevalje only disbanded in 2003, but all sources I see state that 2002 was the last year. [6] says "1994-2002" and doesn't mention 2003, this site gives 2002 as well (in the search box, labeled "isci", you can type korotan, and the final column says "2002"); footballdatabase [7] gives the final game in October 2002. Slovene Wikipedia (yes, not a reliable source, but they may know their own history better?) gives 2002 as well [8]. This news article also gives 2002. Fram (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Umm, this site is NOT the disbandment year of NK Korotan, but a foudning year of DNŠ Prevalje, which today competes under the name "Korotan". I already included a link that Korotan played an official Slovenian PrvaLiga match in March 2003 (click), so how can they be disbanded in 2002 and play games in 2003 ? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The successor team was created in 2002. Korotan Prevalje was bankrupt in late 2002: apparently some players continued playing under the same name until March 2003, but these results were afterwards removed, and only the first 11 games (until late 2002) were taken into account for the competition, and later games were not recognised as "true" Prevalje games as the team officially no longer existed by then? It is a complicated situation, that's why I asked for some others to take a look. Fram (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Korotan went bankrupt in 2003, 100%. The matches were removed because they haven't finished 2/3 of the season yet and so only those from rounds 1-11 stayed. DNŠ Prevalje (literally Football School Prevalje) was founded in 2002, so the youth selections could continue playing, as there were already big problems at Korotan back then. Edit: Here is also source, March 2003, Slovenian television, cannot get better than that. https://www.rtvslo.si/snl2002/novice.php?op=read&id=101 Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivo Sajh

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know that this article is relevant but the main issue here is the formatting of the page as it's seems like a IP'er has had fun in editing a completly unreferenced section into the article. The facts might be true by the style of it is not. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

UEFA Europe League winners

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

An IP (176.214.157.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is adding that players like Conor Gallagher and Jamie Cumming won the 2018–19 UEFA Europe League on the basis they were unused subs in the final. I dispute this, given they made 0 appearances in the completion and were not even first-team players. Any idea whether they got a medal or not? Giant Snowman 08:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

According to this answer on Quora, the question is not whether they played in the final, but whether they played in the competition at any stage in the season. If yes, they get a medal. If no, they don't. Assuming that is accurate. — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought. A number of sources mention him being in the squad (see BBC for example) but not him winning it, although he does have a medal in the photo... (not that that is indicative, it could just be for press). Giant Snowman 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. Because if we were to take that approach, it would negate our long-time insistence that medal equates to honour, because Mr Gallagher was certainly presented with a medal, as were all the subs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Struway, how do you know he was presented with a medal? The quora answer above suggests he wouldn't have been, unless he played in the earlier rounds. Obviously not a reliable source though... — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Medal confirmed here but he says he was "lucky" to get it - does that mean he was not supposed to/it was an error? Giant Snowman 08:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The UEFA Champions League rules, on page 19, rule 11.03, state that the winning team is presented with 40 medals. They do not say anything about whom they are to be awarded to, though. According to this, Thomas Vermaelen was awarded a medal at the game but then "told to give it back" afterwards. The Indy admit that their own source may not be 100% reliable though... — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"does that mean he was not supposed to/it was an error?" - I doubt very much he would be given a medal by mistake. I presume he is just saying that it was lucky that players who didn't actually play in the final can still be given a medal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's excactly what happened to Vermaelen above though... Giant Snowman 08:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The competition rules linked above essentially state that the club is free to give the medals to whomsoever they choose (technically speaking I don't believe they are even required to give one to every player who actually played in the final!), so any claim that Vermaelen had to give his back because he "wasn't eligible"/"was given one in error" is clearly nonsense. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Usually the TV coverage shows the players being given medals and all the subs get one. It would be a stretch to say this was just for TV presentation and not an official medal, something that would be difficult to verify. The source for the Vermaelen story questions its reliability. The Vermaelen story also suggests ulterior motives for the club making a decision (e.g. transfer fee add-ons). So perhaps the medal is not the best criterion. What if a player plays during the group games, left in January and wasn't awarded a medal. Does he not qualify as having won the honour, while a player who also only played during the group phase, but stayed with the club and was given a medal, qualifies. Jts1882 | talk 08:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So, if we can no longer rely on being in the match squad as an indicator of eligibility for the honour (I would agree the larger squads filled with reserves - for the most important matches - have caused more issues like that recently), and as has been discussed previously it's almost impossible to get a verified list of who got a medal, and otherwise reliable stats sites like Soccerway and BDfutbol are a bit overgenerous in who they say has won the competition, should we just scrap the honours section altogether?? Or what would the cut-off be, there will always be arguments about what makes someone eligible? Crowsus (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You say that but only the registered players are eligible and you can see the lists of any of the club players on UEFA, take Basel, on those players listed are eligible to get a medal. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, but that means all the Liverpool and Chelsea registered youth players could get the European honours from last season even if they never played for the first team, or alternatively if they were on the player list but not anywhere near the match in question, which are the points of the issue here. So that's no solution at all, sorry. Crowsus (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - these players did not play in the first-team until the season after (and some, like Jamie Cumming‎, still haven't.) Oh and a new IP 176.59.38.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding the honours to the articles... Giant Snowman 13:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Did we not have a consensus about this topic before? Govvy (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn’t come to a single decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

from the 2018/19 season, 23 people can be declared for the finals. Perhaps after this change and medals they began to hand in the players declared for the final and the players who played in the tournament.Kelleher, the third goalkeeper of Liverpool, was announced for the Champions League final, and then received a medal, as did Gallagher and Cumming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

<https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/europa-league-medals-chelsea-arsenal-16324937> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.159.21 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My argument would be that in competitions where a limited squad has to be registered (as in the Europa League, but also the Champions League, Premier League, La Liga and others), only the players in that 'A' squad should be considered to have won the competition. Players outside that list should only be given the same consideration in certain circumstances, e.g. actually having played in the competition. Considering Conor Gallagher and Jamie Cumming were only named on the bench for the final because the teams were allowed to name 12 substitutes, which opened up spots for players who would not normally be anywhere near the first team, I don't think they should be considered winners of the Europa League. – Pee Jay 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49834275

[1]