Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 158

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
Latest comment: 1 year ago by FkpCascais in topic List of foreign footballers in top leagues of former Yugoslavia
Archive 155 Archive 156 Archive 157 Archive 158 Archive 159 Archive 160 → Archive 165

FIFA World Cup tournaments intro

Latest comment: 1 year ago33 comments11 people in discussion

I've removed the pipe-link [Association football|football] in the FIFA World Cup pages that didn't use "soccer", so that "association football" is shown, rather then just "football". I've done this so that American & Canadian readers wouldn't be confused by the sports name. This isn't a fight over who owns the name "football". Just an aid for those of us who think gridiron football or any other type of football, when we see "football". GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: IF a discussion on this was held before & a consensus was obtained. Please, let me know what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Association football is the full name of the game. It might be shortened to football for times when it is not ambigious, but the lede of an article is very ambigious. As stated before, there are Rugby football (and league) as well as an American football, beach football, futsal, and all sorts of other derivative games. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
None of the other codes, expect for American Football, is ever referred to just as football. Rugby, for instance, is rubgy. Association code is by far an wide the primary topic of football and what is most commonly globally referred to as just football. There is no reason to change something that had never been an issue with for decades. An to Americans and Canadians “association football” is even more confusing. They never call it that, they call it soccer. Association football is used just as rarely as “Rugby Union football” in the UK. Football is by far and wide the commoname.Tvx1 12:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're in Ireland, "football" is Gaelic football. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're in Australia, "football" is Australian rules football, or Rugby League, or any one of several other sports. See Football in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
And what % of the globe does that cover? And what do you call FIFA’s football then?? Then why is the national team governed by simply the Football Association of Ireland?Tvx1 13:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
You made an absolute statement. It was incorrect. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You are suggesting, if I'm reading this right - that we should make something more ambiguous, because it'll only effect a small amount of readers? I'm failing to see the downside of using the full term. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
No I’m suggesting making no change at all. It wasn’t ambiguous to begin with. Else we ‘d been made aware years ago. You’re just overconcerned. The full term would actually be more ambiguous because not much people actually know that one.Tvx1 13:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Something being done for a long time doesn't make it right. If it were not confusing, we'd have the main article at football. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If it were actually confusing, we would actually have had a complaint during the four previous world cup for which we maintained an article since Wikipedia came into existence. I really don’t know what I have to do to make you understand you’re being overconcerned.Tvx1 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that 'twice' Tvx1, you've reverted my changes to the intros with a claim of 'no consensus'. Yet it appears you're basically the only editor who's doing the reverting. I hope you're not suggesting that 'your support' is required, for a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the linked-page is called Association football, rather then "Football". Seeing as there is a page called Football, which covers multiple sports? It would appear that association football is not the primary topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Note - Perhaps in the 'new year' & after the FIFA tournament has ended. I'll likely open an RFC on this matter. I don't understand something, though. Both here & at another discussion, a majority of editors have supported my argument. But, nobody else has undone Tvx1's reverts. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is based on strenght of arguments and not on head count. The problem is that your majority has failed to supply a single bit of evidence that readers are confused. The problem you complain about just doesn’t exist Tvx1 15:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in reverting, but I agree with Tvx1 that there was no problem that needed to be fixed. The link went to Association football, as it should, and the text was "football", which is what reliable sources universally use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It's alright Mike. I'll be opening an RFC on the matter, sometime after the current tournament ends. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The sport is called "association football." The article on the sport is called "Association football." The article on the FIFA World Cup calls the sport "association football." I don't know why we would want to refer to the sport as something different on this page. As for evidence of confusion, I would suggest you google the word "football" and see what comes up. Most of the hits I got weren't for association football. My point here is that in a large portion of the English-speaking world, football is not what first comes to mind when one hears the word "football." Why would be want to use a term that means different things to different people, not an unambiguous one? Why would we use a different term that the one used in the article on the sport itself? It's true that the wikilink clears up ambiguity, but only if the reader thinks there is ambiguity and decides to click on it. For many readers, "football" is unambiguous, so there's no need to click on the link. The problem is that "football" in this article doesn't mean what they think it means. Instant Comma (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe all the objections to changing "football" in the opening to "association football" have been addressed. If not, please let me know what I have missed. Instant Comma (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a consensus or that everyone getting too bored to add anything further means that the last contributor gets to choose how to close the issue. Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This gets back to my previous point. Is there any unaddressed objection to making the change? If so, I'm happy to carry on the discussion. If not, there's no reason not to make the change. I believe that other editors and I have addressed every possible objection, but if I've missed something, please let me know. Instant Comma (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
yes, I believe that few, if any, reliable sources describe the world cup as "an association football tournament". Spike 'em (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Few reliable sources will describe it as "an association football tournament." Lots will call it a "football tournament" and lots will call it a "soccer tournament." That's the essence of the problem. Will you stipulate that reliable sources call it a "soccer tournament"? Or should I provide references? Instant Comma (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
And we make changes when there is a positive consensus to do so, not by one person claiming last man standing rights. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not claiming "last man standing rights." I'm working toward consensus, responding to the concerns raised by others and making sure that I haven't missed anything. Just as I can't claim consensus by posting the last comment in this discussion, others can't deny consensus by refusing to respond to good-faith arguments. Instant Comma (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I might add that you're not actually calling for a consensus. There already is a consensus at football and association football about how this sport should be named. What you're looking for is a local consensus, which runs against Wikipedia policy. Instant Comma (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There is consensus on what the article titles are, but this does not mean that is the consensus on how to refer to the subject in other articles. Piped links and DABs exist to cater for multiple meanings of the same word. Spike 'em (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. As you say, there are "multiple meanings" of the word "football." On this, the MOS is clear: "For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." The MOS goes on to say: "Terms that differ between varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, 'the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car ....'" Instant Comma (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, I personally don't care if the ledes are changed nor if "association football" is written out, but since I opened a similar discussion below, I will add some thoughts based on this discussion. First, Instant Comma seems to base at least some of their argument on the article currently using "association" in the lede, even though the unprovoked change to that is what is being discussed. Second, Tvx1 is absolutely correct that if four World Cups have passed and nobody has opposed the use of just "football", GoodDay needs to seek actual consensus before insisting on making the change. Third, and I am surprised this hasn't come up yet, being less ambiguous is ideal for general articles (though even then that's frequently achieved with piped links) but if you are already at an article with FIFA in the title, you know which "football" it is about. All in all, I have to agree that the change made was a solution without a problem. Kingsif (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The previous comment is the epitome of the curse of knowledge. It's entirely possible for someone to hear about the FIFA World Cup, to not know what it is, and to look it up here to find out. In fact, that person is who we should be writing the piece for. An encyclopedia does not exist for people who already know the information it contains. Instant Comma (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've tried to stay out of this discussion for a while, but I think I've finally worked out what my position is. I think that articles on subjects that have links to multiple varieties of English should use as broad terminology as possible (without being over-the-top about it) and not favour any particular variety of English. To that end, I think that all articles about FIFA World Cups (just the finals tournaments, not qualifying) should use association football in the lead, at least at the first usage. In the case of the 1994 and 2026 tournaments, I would be in favour of "soccer" being added in parentheses after "association football", and then using "soccer" throughout the rest of the article. For all other tournaments, "football" on its own could be used throughout the article after the initial use of "association football" in the lead. – PeeJay 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    I agree and think this is a sensible way forward. GiantSnowman 21:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Bounou

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Hello. On the article of Yassine Bounou, what should the nationality in the lede be? Moroccan, or should it be omitted and explained further down in the lede, since he was born in Canada and has Canadian citizenship? Moroccan IP editors keep on changing it back to 'Moroccan professional footballer', albeit in GF, but probably with some bias too. I argue that it should be 'professional footballer [...] and the Morocco national team' and further down, 'Born in Canada to Moroccan parents..' Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. Kingsif (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But leaving the lede without mentioning his Moroccan nationality (that he acquired Jus sanguinis and that is also the place where he was raised and his sporting nationality) is giving weight to the trivial fact of his birth in Canada. And the fact that he never identified himself as a Canadian or a Canadian-Moroccan, he never lived or played in a team/club or even visited Canada. It even says in the guideline MOS:NATIONALITY Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. The only relevant nationality in Bounou's case is the Moroccan one. 196.119.118.98 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Spending his entire footballing life in Morocco and representing the team makes him Moroccan to me. His place of birth is not relevant to his notability; his footballing career is. Spike 'em (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Moroccan. He plays for Moroccan national team, and so we list as Moroccan, even if he was born and lived 3 years in Canada. The current lead explains the situation well. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, he's much more notably a Moroccan footballer rather than a Canadian footballer. Holding two citizenships doesn't necessarily mean we have to omit the nationality from the lead (see Messi who also holds Spanish citizenship); same goes for being born abroad (Haaland was born in Leeds). Nehme1499 12:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thank you to all for contributions. Nationality will be displayed as "Moroccan". However, note that for players like Romain Saïss, this wouldn't be the same scenario, as he was born and grew up in France, reaching his senior career in the country. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Bounou received his football education in Morocco, and even played senior professional football there before moving overseas. The situation is not comparable to the likes of Scott McTominay, who was born in England, has only ever lived in England, plays for an English club and talks with an English accent, yet plays for Scotland due to his heritage. – PeeJay 21:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that Bounou should be 'Moroccan' despite being born in Canada - same with Sterling being 'English' even though he was born in Jamaica. There is a difference between players who moved countries as a child, and those who qualify purely through heritage. GiantSnowman 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of Goalscorer/s

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion

goalscorer/s or goal-scorer/s or goal scorer/s?2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they are all correct imao as non-native speaker. Dr Salvus 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Either the first or the third. There's really no reason for the hyphen. 1995hoo (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
What 1995hoo said. Either one word (OED, Collins) or two i.e not listed as a single or hyphenated word (Chambers, Merriam Webster), depending on the dictionary you look it up in. No examples of hyphenated. OED and Collins are British English dictionaries, MW is American, Chambers is drifting mid-Atlantic, so there might be an ENGVAR influence. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
And ignore half of that... Collins has it explicitly as two words. The only one of the four mentioned that has it as a single word is the OED. Sorry for the incompetence... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go with two separate words then. GiantSnowman 19:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Never really thought about it before. I spell it as one word. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
So do I. – PeeJay 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Same. Nehme1499 17:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Representing 2nd half in matches of less than 90 minutes

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Domestic matches in India till the 1960s were often of less than 90 minutes. Sometimes they lasted 60 minutes but I don't know what duration was used when.

When a report says that a goal was scored in the 10th minute of the second half, and you don't know the duration of the match, is there a standard way in Wikipedia of representing it ? Facing this problem while filling the results in some articles like 1950–51 Santosh Trophy. At the moment, I am using the format "10(2)" with an explanation but this appears a bit awkward. Tintin 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt there's a standard way of doing it, but I think you'd need to find a better source for the goal time in order to accurately report it on here. For the time being, all we can say for sure is that Player X scored a goal. If you provide a link to the match report as a citation, that should be enough to fill in the blanks if any readers want to investigate further. – PeeJay 17:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Clubs honours sections

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Personally, I think it would be preferable to standardise English football club honours section format, almost like an info-box, to make it easier for the viewer to asses/compare different club's trophies. currently this section seems to be a bit of a free for all.

I've tried to alter the format of many clubs based on the format used by Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Chelsea F.C. etc, as they are some of the biggest clubs in the country and the articles have achieved Wikipedia:Featured article status. Their style of format, includes 'bolding' the name of the league and the "champions", however, apparently this is not correct, as it counts as excessive bolding. If that is the case, then surely these articles should be edited? Joseph1891 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I standardized a lot of Football League club articles, including the honours section, earlier this year. However I left the FA standard super clubs alone. Bolding is unnecessary and overused. Port Vale don't need (2) or (1) to indicate how many League One or League Two titles they have won. The reader can count to two. However it makes perfect sense for Manchester United and Liverpool to have (20) and (19). Those clubs don't have runner-ups or promotions either, which again is fair for clubs that expect to reach cup finals on a regular basis and haven't been competing to get promoted in half a century.--EchetusXe 15:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

But where do we draw the line between adding the bracket and leaving them out? Of course the reader can count to two, but I thought it just makes more sense with an honour to summarise the amount won. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

When this was discussed for players, many agreed to use counts starting with six. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Still need to reach a consensus on a format we all agree on. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding a bracket counter, when the trophy length is over five, then I suggest to start a bracket counter from then. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy agree that makes sense Joseph1891 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
So would the ideal be something like the York City honours section:
Leagues
Third Division (level 3)
Fourth Division / Third Division (level 4)
Conference Premier (level 5)
National League North (level 6)
Cups
FA Trophy
Joseph1891 (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you think "promoted" or "runners up" should count as an honour? I thought an honour meant winning a trophy, the likes of getting promoted does not. Not sure if it would be better to include this in a clubs "records and statistics" section rather than honours? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Technically, clubs do not get an honour for runner up in anything, I don't think it should be listed. The players get runner up medals, clubs do not receive a runner-up! Govvy (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy My point exactly, honours should only include gaining an actual physical trophy, not finishing "fourth and gaining promotion" Joseph1891 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll go about un-bolding honours sections Joseph1891 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I changed "Honours" to "Honours and achievements" to prevent any arguements such as "Only getting a trophy counts as an honour and the trophy clubs get for winning the play-offs don't count because I said so". So York City's 100 year honours list isn't therefore limited to a 1983–84 league win and two FA Trophy wins.--EchetusXe 13:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@EchetusXe, Ok thanks, coming across a bit strongly there. Both myself and Govvy believe this, no one was going to change anything yet. How would gaining promotion ever count as an honour? If York have only won one league title and two Fa trophy’s… we’ll then they’ve only won one league and two FA trophy’s. Promotion should be included in the “records and statistics”. But now you’ve changed it to “and achievements” this is no longer an issue for York’s article. Joseph1891 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't actually touch the York City F.C. article as it too was an FA. But yeah I did for the other clubs. Back to the original point: go ahead and be bold with your un-bolding.--EchetusXe 17:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
A.C. Monza earned a trophy for winning the promotion play-offs. Each case should be looked at individually. Nehme1499 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@EchetusXe Hahaha I will ;) also it's alright to edit featured articles, cheers. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you think FC Barcelona would be a good way to format honours sections? Joseph1891 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
efl teams finishing second are quite literally given a trophy. idk about other leagues, but efl champs, l1, and l2 runner up get a trophy. same for third in l2, since that has 3rd auto promoted. here is bournemouth from the 21-22 season with their championship second place trophy for promotion. so your thing of only being an hounour if you get a trophy is flawed for lower league english football cuz they get one. this started with southampton in 2012 after they complained to the efl that 1st place and play off winners got a trophy and they got nothing. efl agreed and made them a tropy.Muur (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Muur yeah of course we've decided to leave runners up and promotion in.Joseph1891 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't we format club honours sections like the European clubs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs isn't that how honours sections were intended to be formatted? The likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona do this. Joseph1891 (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muur: You know, that Bournemouth source, says they were given a trophy, but I don't see photographic evidence! lol. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Govy Bro, there’s literally a photo of them lifting the trophy. Joseph1891 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

its a gallery of 60 images. most with a trophy.Muur (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We should do something about Mexican football

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Only five of the teams in Liga MX have 2022-23 season articles. That isn't very good for what I would predict to be the perhaps the 8th best league in the world. Anybody want to join me on a crusade to fix this?Ijustlikefootball (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, but a lot of the online sources covering Mexican football are behind paywalls. I know Medio Tiempo is free to access, but are there enough free sources to really do these club season articles? Pachuca would probably be the top candidate, so I'll see what I can find for their season. Jogurney (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Not that I believe we need a season article for every club in every league simply because it exists, depending on how sites are paywalled, you can sometimes see the raw text of the article on other websites, such as with Textise.net. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ijustlikefootball: A lot of the Mexican season articles from seasons past need work as well. I saw a while back some articles got deleted. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Mexican football in general needs to have the articles expanded, lots of stubs come from here.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
another option to try is using an archiving snapshot site, such as [1] --SuperJew (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup final

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

After the consensus on the RM on the article was to move from Final to final, should all "Final" articles also be moved, even if they're not World Cup finals? For example, shouldn't the consensus there apply to 2022 Coupe de France Final? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lower-casing seems to be the trend. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Given the consensus for both the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Women's Euros has been that final should have a lower case f, I would say the rest should as well per MOS:CAPS. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
They should have been so in the first place, WP:NCCAPS requires it be treated as a proper noun outside of Wikipedia. I'd suggest the majority (if not all) Foo Final articles are incorrectly capped. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, Stevie fae Scotland, and GoodDay: Is this permission to move all Coupe de France Final articles to the uncapitalized “final”? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Appears as though that's the trend, lower-casing. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless all sources (or at least the vast majority) treat it as a proper noun, we should not. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
You don't need our permission. It's not a proper noun so just be bold and move it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I've already moved the English football league playoff articles according to the common name and will probably follow suit on various others in the next few days, making sure each example isn't an exception in sources of course. It seems fairly Uncontroversial at this point given the two RMs on the matter.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final#Requested move 22 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories for players who took part to an academy.

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What about creating categories for players who took part to a determinate academy? Dr Salvus 13:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

If there are sufficient players that have played in a certain academy, then there could be merit in a category, even if the academy itself is not notable. GiantSnowman 11:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I've created Category:American Youth Soccer Organization players. I've also inserted people who aren't footballers but had spent some time in the academy, such as Jenna Ortega. Dr Salvus 15:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
...I was surely unaware of WP:NONDEF. Dr Salvus 15:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
he doesnt currently have a page, but Matty Grivosti was part of the robbie fowler academy.Muur (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Youssouf Fofana

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request for input at Youssouf Fofana (footballer). Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories for National League (English football)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Over the last few months I have been compiling notes offline concerning the various clubs that have played in the National League (English football) (or its predecessors, the Alliance Premier League and the Football Conference) since the creation of that league at the start of the 1979-80 season. Today I set up two categories:

I then populated Category:National League (English football) clubs without a problem, and began to populate Category:Former National League (English football) clubs, initially by moving clubs out of Category:National League (English football). I was part-way through this task (working alphabetically, I had reached the clubs beginning with S and T when a quick refresh of the category page showed that many of the clubs had vanished from Category:Former National League (English football) clubs. Investigating, I found that they had been moved to Category:National League (English football) clubs by Number 57 (talk · contribs) despite the inclusion criterion at the top of that category page. So I started User talk:Number 57#Categories for National League (English football) where you will find two posts from each of myself and Number 57.

So, I am asking this WikiProject: is it appropriate for the clubs to be categorised by current/former status, or should all the clubs be in one category regardless of whether they presently play in that league or not? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that we do not have separate categories for former/current clubs - so for example, Bradford City A.F.C. is in both Category:Premier League clubs and Category:English Football League clubs, and there is no Category:Former Premier League clubs category. GiantSnowman 20:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Raheem Sterling#NATIONALITY

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone who want to participate further on this talk page section - as the opening sentence has been changed once again I've noticed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanni Sartini

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Between yesterday and today, I've worked extensively on the coach's page, by adding several bits of information on his early life, his coaching CV and various other aspects.

Since I'm still slowly learning the fundamentals of Wikipedia, I've tried my best to keep grammar, formatting and quotes as polished as possible, while trying to edit boldly. However, I'd really appreciate any type of feedback on my contributions (@ShelfSkewed already gave me his, by the way), should you have enough time to do so.

Oltrepier (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paul W Thank you for your help! : )
Is there anything else that I should do to develop/improve the article? Oltrepier (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Oltrepier. You already seem to have grasped the fundamentals. So far as this article is concerned, in adding a date of birth to the lead, I noticed that the article urges use of MDY date formats, but lower down, the article reverts to DMY dates. Which ever is used, the same format should be used throughout. A minor clarification: I note Davide Nicola served two spells as Livorno manager - was Sartini match analyst for both spells? Paul W (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Paul W Right, I admit I still struggle a bit with date formats.
And yes, I think so, since Ezio Gelain [it] was the one that served as Nicola's assistant there. Actually, Sartini confirmed it in this interview (which I already included as a reference), but the Whitecaps' website (also quoted) reported slightly different details, so I'm genuinely unsure about it.
The truth is that I couldn't find Sartini's name in neither of the two season pages on it.wiki, so only his own article reports it. Luckily enough, he does feature on Bari's season page, so at least that bit of information is fully verified...
On a side note, could the article be eligible for a WP:DYK or a WP:GA nomination, if we keep re-tooling it?
Anyway, thank you very much for your advice! (same to @Robby.is.on, by the way) Oltrepier (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Loans lasting more than 12 months

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Yeah, this might look like to be off-topic but could be helpful for me anyway. Loaning players for more than 12 months would not be doable according to FIFA's rules. Nevertheless, I've seen Juventus loan two players until June 2024. How's this even possible? Dr Salvus 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Loans of 18 months or more happen fairly regularly. James Rodriguez was loaned from Real Madrid to Bayern for two years, IIRC, and I think Juan Cuadrado was loaned to Juventus for a similar period. What makes you think FIFA's rules prohibit this? Even if they did, clubs could get around it by loaning the player for the maximum allowed period, terminating the loan and then loaning him out again. – PeeJay 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Re: Rodriguez, you are indeed correct per this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
PJ, loaning players for more than 12 months is not permitted by FIFA, read here. Probably, they've made an agreement with the borrowing team to make two loans, instead of one. But, Juventus have announced the loan would last until 2024... [1] Dr Salvus 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
That link came into effect 1 July 2022, so the James Rodriguez 18 month loan was before those rules. Even with the max one year loan, there's really nothing stopping them from loaning for a year, then extending it another year a year later. RedPatch (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Must have got confused from Juventus announcing the deal until 2024. Dr Salvus 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I remember Alexander Nübel was also involved in a similar type of deal between Bayern and Monaco, but that was arranged before the new rules, as well. Indeed, that announcement is kind of misleading... Oltrepier (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of the FIFA link you provided, it says "Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations." For that player, is she under 21? That could be how she's allowed to do an 18 month loan. RedPatch (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It also says "At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level." Given its a domestic loan, it still falls into that 3 year grace period, where the rules don't need to match international rules yetRedPatch (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, she's 19. Juventus also loaned Ferdinando Del Sole to Potenza until 2024 and he was neither a CTP nor less than 23 in August 2022, when he was loaned. Probably, they made use of "grace period". Dr Salvus 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by...

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion

What is the minimum international goals needed for one of these articles? Just enquiring about the necessity of this article for a player who scored 36 goals. Should this be sent to AFD? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The article should be expanded, not deleted. He is his nation's top goalscorer. Nehme1499 22:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
These articles should only exist as a WP:SPLIT of the main article. Considering all that info already exists on the main page, redirect this/merge anything missing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're an admin, you can look at an article I'd created in winter 2021: List of international goals scored by Sergio Ramos. If you look the much info I put there, you would see WP:SPLIT being correctly applicated. Nonetheless, the article was deleted. Dr Salvus 23:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying the article should not have been deleted. Indeed, I think the article should have a minimum of notability, but Ramos, who is a defender, can't have it. Dr Salvus 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, the case of Ernst Wilimowski, who is Poland's ninth top goalscorer, played one tournament game, and has a list article that misspells his name as Ernst Willimowski. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
That should be merged back into the main article, no need for a standalone. GiantSnowman 11:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Done ✔ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@ItsKesha: Thanks for note for that. There is mispell in the name of the article. There are three possibilites of title: Ezi, Ernest Wilimiwski in Polish or Ernst Willimowski in German. In Polish there is Ernest with E before "S" and one letter L at "Wilimowski". In German there is "Ernst name and two "LL" in Willimowski. It is no way to kept nme of the article as mix Polish-German "Ernst Wilimowski" (all sources which call him with German name spelling but Polish surname speling are probably because of English Wikipedia mistake!). Eventually we can call it Ezi but I am not sure it is the most right idea. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with deletion of all earlier articles except list of goals scored by Ronaldo Nazario as it is player who had most international titles (along with Casillas AFAIR) and it is no way to keep Alfredo Di Stéfano list who never played World Cup in international career but no Brazilian Ronaldo's and per my comments here. I would also remove mentioned article (Issam Jemâa list) by ItsKesha and some other articles but would back for sure Nazario's one. Best regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I am still surprised that Harry Kane's page hasn't been recreated considering he is the current all-time England top scorer. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Valentín Carboni

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hello! I wanted to bring this page to your attention, since I've finished my extensive re-work on it just a few hours ago.

I'd hugely appreciate any kind of feedback, and I also wanted to know if the page could be eligible for a WP:DYK or a WP:GA nomination, although it might still be too soon for it.

Oltrepier (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being tough but B Class is exaggerated and can't be a DYK. Dr Salvus 13:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus No worries, I just wanted a feedback about that. Admittedly, he has only played two professional games so far: it's only right that we wait for something more to happen... Oltrepier (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, you could even try to make it a GA (I've nominated Samuel Iling-Junior who isn't much older). Actually, there's no minimum length for GAs. But no, it cannot be a DYK. Dr Salvus 13:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not far away from being eligible for DYK. It's only been expanded fourfold since you started. If you can expand it further to c. 23,000 bytes in the next few days then it would be eligible. If you think it meets the GA criteria then just nominate it. It might take a while before someone can review it but at the very worst, they will tell you how the article can be improved to meet the criteria. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what you're measuring with, but DYKcheck reckons that it's only about 100 bytes short. A couple of solid sentences in the lead, which the article needs anyway (e.g when he made his pro debut, something about his international representation) would take it over the 5x expansion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Struway2 @Stevie fae Scotland Thank you, but again, no worries: I mainly wanted a feedback on the quality of my work overall, and I'm very pleased by the response.
I might try nominating the article in the GA section for real, though, since it looks in good shape after the latest edits! Oltrepier (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think there is any issue with submitting this for GA. I brought Harvey Elliott to GA status when the article was in a very similar state to this one. Though I should warn you we have a rather large backlog at WP:GAN right now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019 I take it as a good omen, then... : D
Yes, I also noticed that the backlog is pretty overloaded, but to be honest, I'm not in a hurry at all: at the moment, I'm just trying to get as much feedback as I can and improve my skills as I go.
Thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I made it! Many thanks to everyone for your input, and especially to @Dr Salvus, for assisting me with the reviewing process. I'm really, really pleased about the final result.
Now, maybe I could try with WP:DYK, too. Oltrepier (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Serie A Player of the Month

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've abbandoned this article, which I wanted to bring to FL status. Would anyone be keen to do so? I'll give credit to whoever takes this. Dr Salvus 15:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus Check out my input on the DYK discussion for the article: I might have just found a solution to unlock the review and let you progress!
~~~~ Oltrepier (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sunday league football and Sunday league football in England - both needed.....?

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion

As far as I am aware, Sunday League football (as in the concept of a completely separate set-up organised on Sundays when football is primarily played on Saturdays, not the notion of football being played on Sundays in general) is pretty much a UK-specific phenomenon. Do we really need separate articles on the general concept and on the specifics of it in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, as Sunday league football is all about the UK anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
They probably aren't both needed but Sunday league isn't just a UK thing. The Netherlands has Sunday leagues that run from the Derde Divisie and below. It's a quite different setup to the UK Sunday leagues though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a different concept. Whereas the Dutch Sunday leagues are part of their football pyramid, ours aren't. – PeeJay 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Traditionally only clubs from the Bible Belt (Netherlands), Youth teams and obscure leagues like the Amsterdamse Kantoorvoetbalbond played on Saturday. Eredivisie before the introduction of floodlights and live broadcast on TV played on Sunday afternoon. 14:30 kick off in most cases. There are probably many countries on the continent where football was played on Sunday and not on Saturday. Cattivi (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate that there are countries where football is/was played on Sunday pretty much as standard, but the article Sunday league football isn't about the general concept of "football being played on Sundays", it's about the specific form of amateur/recreational football played in the UK on Sundays which is distinct from what many people see as "proper" football played on Saturdays -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No need for a separate article. GiantSnowman 21:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Player notabilty

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Does Wikipedia:NFOOTY no longer exist as an article in its own right? The link now goes to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people where there is no specific football sub-section. Does that mean anything goes? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it was done away with ages ago. WP:SPORTCRIT is the relevant guideline now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
So there is no longer a specific requirement to have played professional football? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No, but then there never was anyway if a subject passed the GNG. See, for example, this AfD from way back in 2008 where a player who had never played professionally was kept due to passing the GNG...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As long as the player meets GNG, they are notable - that is how it has always been (although not always how it was implemented in practice...) GiantSnowman 20:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Daemonickangaroo2018: I think that by "ages ago", ChrisTheDude means nine months ago: the removal was done with this edit. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
After the year I had last year IRL, nine months ago seems like a long time ago.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"It" usage in National Teams

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Bbllo: has been continuing to edit national teams' names out of their pages and instead replacing them with the word it. This has happened on the following pages:

I've also not had a response to my Talk message attempting to resolve the matter and was wondering if someone could do a sock check?

Felixsv7 (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

An accusation of sockpuppetry should come with evidence. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Club honours - need to reach a consensus

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments10 people in discussion

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs how we should be formatting this section then? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Provided what you do fits with MOS:LIST (as the honours section is an embedded list), it won't matter which style is chosen. Personally, I prefer the table format. It does fit with the MOS but it's not the only list format that does. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland I agree, anyone else have any thoughts? Be good to reach a consensus on this. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

What Stevie said. Tables are generally better so long as they are adequately created. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So do we agree that tables are the better format? Joseph1891 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that for club articles only, tables are fine. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

However, note that my opinion is not consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the bulleted list format used by probably most club articles, though without the excessive bolding that was the reason for the change to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs table format some years ago. (Oddly, Israeli clubs tend to use that format, and practically no others do.) I have no objection to a table, so long as it complies with the Manual of Style, not just MOS:LIST but MOS:BOLD, MOS:ACCESS etc. But I wouldn't be keen on any specific format being imposed on pages that have been long-term stable in a different one, and I don't think we're likely to get a consensus here for e.g. requiring a change to table format in preference to fixing simple MoS issues in a bulleted list, or vice versa. Especially over the holiday period when even fewer people than usual are here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Tables are not so great if you're listening to an article being read. Although it's a small amount, there are specialist browsers for the visually impaired, hard of hearing where, keeping it simple is better. This should be considered with WP:ACCESS. There is a reason to be cautious when creating a table on what information is going into one and why. You really don't need a table for honours. You should use them sparingly if you can in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the scope=row and scope=column parameters aren't always used in the header row and first column so the programmes which read the tables don't understand what each cell is supposed to represent. I don't know if that is the only issue but it would definitely make it more accessible. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy OK, it’s seems you are the only one so far who dislikes the table format idea, what I don’t understand is why the table format is shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs if it isn’t being used? I thought that article was a template for how we should be formatting club articles? I don’t really see how a table makes it harder for some readers, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus etc format their honours sections like this. To me, and clearly some fellow editors, a table format makes honours more simple to observe, not the opposite. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the table format either and prefer the bulleted lists (tables might work for clubs with tonnes of the same type of honour, but they will be unhelpful for clubs with numerous different types of honours). It looks like the MOS was changed without consensus, so the table version shouldn't really have any formal status. Number 57 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Alas, back in 2012, [2] Govvy (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

So would it be possible for everyone to say whether or not they’d prefer a table format: yes/no? etc Joseph1891 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using tables for this, especially if it causes accessibility problems. The honours section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players has been discussed extensively and could serve as a model for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. It also enforces MOS:BOLD. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else? Yes/no Joseph1891 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

? Joseph1891 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd go for no tables too. Looks cleaner to me. -Koppapa (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Koppapa I agree, tables look far cleaner and are harder to re-arrange. Really need to reach an agreement on this, half want tables, half want to keep the current format. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would go with tables. Much easier and better structured. Kante4 (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1956 European Cup Final#Requested move 6 January 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1956 European Cup Final#Requested move 6 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User turns articles into redirects without any discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

It should be looked up if he did this with more articles. Hannelsen (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DRAFTIFY. Reasonably normal for someone to move new articles that don't make a good claim for notability to be moved to draft. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
So then according to the very "new standards" here, hundred thousands of player articles should be moved to draft. (Of course this won't happened and instead just some unlucky articles will be moved. But thank you for letting me know that Wikipedia was turned into a total waste of time. --Hannelsen (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Not really. It's a reasonable side effect of WP:NPP. After the recent removal of the specialist SNG for football, new articles should make a good demonstration of meeting WP:GNG. Draftification should only happen once, so now you've moved it to mainspace again, there'd have to be an AfD to delete. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey any chance you have a source for draftication only needing to happen once? Asking out of genuine curiosity, in case you remember offhand. Ortizesp (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, WP:DRAFTOBJECT, Ortizesp. Happy to help :). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I moved the article back into mainspace because he passes GNG, but just an FYI the standard for new articles (especially for footballers for political reasons) is much higher. You would need one independent article about the subject to pass GNG. I believe yours had one, namely "Kastanaras feiert Bun­des­liga­debüt", so I do think it was draftified hastily. I've expanded the page a little bit, but there's still room for expansion. Cheers!@Hannelsen:.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
One indepenent source is not usually sufficient to establish GNG. The wording of the guideline says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". I would often consider WP:THREE to be a starting point myself, although there may be exceptions for high quality examples.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the only real issue is that these are BLPs, so at NPP there's generally a higher requirement for a biography. The user who draftified did it correctly as far as I can see. They left a talk page message explaining the move. The editor classified it as "vandalism" when moving it back to mainspace and then left warnings at their talk, which isn't really cricket. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing for extended referee teams at the World Cup

Latest comment: 1 year ago32 comments11 people in discussion

Hi! Where do we source the referee's teams from that we are posting in articles? Such as this one taken from 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B

Assistant referees:

Tomaž Klančnik (Slovenia)

Andraž Kovačič (Slovenia)

Fourth official:

Yoshimi Yamashita (Japan)

Reserve assistant referee:

Karen Díaz Medina (Mexico)

Video assistant referee:

Marco Fritz (Germany)

Assistant video assistant referees:

Paolo Valeri (Italy)

Paweł Sokolnicki (Poland)

Bastian Dankert (Germany)

Stand-by assistant video assistant referee:

Vasile Marinescu (Romania)

Do we have a source for listing these people? I get it's a World Cup, but what does a Stand-by VAR referee do that is important to note? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

stand-by assistant VAR ;) --SuperJew (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
A very important position I'm sure. :p. Seems like crazy detail, especially if we aren't citing it. Might as well name the ball boys. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't think it's a necessary inclusion but you could cite the broadcast - {{Cite AV media}}. Hack (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
ball boys are important ;)
I know of at least one case of a ball boy going on to play for the club. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I would ditch them, it is excessive detail. The actual ref, who has the most impact on the game, is listed in small font in the main match details; it is ridiculous that the tv team and the dude whose main job is to hold up a timing board are given far greater prominence at the bottom. Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. I get that these people are important to the running of a match, but it's simply not important information for a Wikipedia article on a group of matches. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should name the head referee, the two assistants, the 4th ref, since those are the officials who are presented at the start of the match and have direct interaction with players and coaches. I'd also name the head VAR, since they're responsible for recommending reviews to the head referee. Everyone else is only notable if something happens to the main refs and they're asked to step in.
Side note: I'm chuckling at the fact that there are assistants to the video assistant, and a stand-by for the assistants to the video assistant. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Its absolutely crazy. I'm used to non-league where the linesman is walking their dog. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Per the above, I think the main ref is possibly useful information, but the entire crew is far too deeply trivial to be necessary to list for each match. Even if there are reliable sources, it doesn't mean we have to include it. It's clearly below the threshold of relevance for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll start making similar changes in a couple days unless someone comes up with a really good reason to retain... Might need a little help on historical articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you should make any changes until we can come up with an actual consensus to do so. The reasons given so far are totally arbitrary. FIFA considers all of the individuals listed to be part of the officiating crew, and I don't think it's up to us to make any judgements on that. Do you have any sources we could consult for a potential reduction in the lists, or are we just making value judgements about what seems "crazy", "excessive" and "ridiculous"? – PeeJay 21:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The opposite is clearly true as no sources are talking about these people, considering we are having to go to the broadcast to even get their names. It's hardly a "value judgement" when the ball boys have more interaction in the match than these people.
I can't believe I'm having to do this, but Island92 has reverted these edits commenting that "consensus is wrong" and pointing to some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also suggesting that because the information was inserted into the article by one user, it's infallible. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't have simply a direct source because FIFA did not publish PDF documents for this World Cup edition. See 2018 case (reference number 95) to notice the difference. The article regarding the final follows the consistency in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage starting from the quarter-finals for the list of the official referees, including stand-byes.--Island92 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason why user @S.A. Julio: added both Stand-byes also for the final, as he did the same starting from the quarter-finals in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Why has it to be omitted for the most important match of the tournament? User S.A. Julio doens't add unsourced information.--Island92 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Was not him for the knockout stage but ok. FIFA on twitter was the source (after i used ArbitroInternacional before as they were quicker). Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the stand-by officials can be removed from the articles, as they do not have much of a role in the tournament. Otherwise, I would agree with PeeJay, FIFA considers all the individuals as part of the officiating crew, and I believe it is relevant to mention who is making the match decisions. We are already including all the other match report details on these group/knockout articles, I don't see why we shouldn't include all the officials. I can help improve the sourcing if necessary, there are many other sources that publish the full officiating crew. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I was specifically talking about those who literally did nothing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
They did nothing, but were included in the whole referee squad. Also the VAR referee might not do nothing in 90 minutes unless he's called to make a decision, but he's part of the referees squad. Island92 (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
That's so WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't even include the whole playing squad at these times. We don't include a long list of all of the commentary teams, all of the ball boys, the stewards or anything else for that matter in these match summaries. Why on earth do we need the "standby assistant VAR"? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, i'd remove the stand-bys to in any case. Mayybe even the AVAR's. It's really a sidenote during the pre-game broadcast. No other media talks about those. -Koppapa (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Because they are as important as the others, despite having a different role. The whole referee squad should be included.--Island92 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
For me the four refs and VAR should stay. Open for removing the others, maybe the main assistant VAR but not sure there is one as they list three. Kante4 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, even after all of the above the "stand-by assistant VAR" did important decisions in the match. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Source added.--Island92 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, but just because a source states something doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion. I think there's a pretty clear consensus above that the positions for those who are standby or assistant positions aren't encyclopedic.
I'm also really unsure if we should be sourcing to "draftkings" SB Nation as a reliable source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Before you said unsourced. Now that the source is there is not suitable anyway. I consider them to have the same value, set all by FIFA, included, as included in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage.--Island92 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is completely excessive and adds nothing to the article. The lists shouldn't be on the knockout stage article either. We don't have to add every single piece of information about a match to the article and have to make editorial decisions about what to do. Spike 'em (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This list of referees should be included at all. I don't understand why for this final a new style is being adapted. Island92 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The excessive listing of every official shouldn't be on the other articles either, so I'll happily go through those and remove.
Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in insisting then. You will happily go through group stages articles and knockout phases articles as well given that you say either and either. The prose mentions all of them, whereas the below list doesn't match with it. I find this policy incorrect. Regards. Island92 (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand removing the stand-by officials, but I am not sure why the AVARs need to be removed. They are also responsible for making match-changing decisions, offside calls, etc. It seems arbitrary to include the VAR but not the other video officials, they are all recognised by FIFA as members of the officiating team. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

List of foreign footballers in top leagues of former Yugoslavia

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Current players in a former country. Is it only me that thinks this article does not make sense? Should be split by the actual countries. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The title of the article is a little confusing so it would be clearer to split. It would also be more manageable if broken up. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Nehme1499 13:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I definitely agree, as well. By the way, the article already links to a similar list that covers only the Serbian SuperLiga, the First League of Serbia and Montenegro and the Yugoslav First League, so that adds redundancy to the confusion... Oltrepier (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree, but good luck finding someone who would split several thousands of players from this article into 7 countries, this cannot be done by any script and would need to be done manually, player by player. And you would also need to take into consideration the years when the leagues were established - i.e., if some player played for Croatian or Slovenian club in 1970 it would need to stay in the Yugoslav article, but if he played after 1991, it would need to be moved. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be split into the Yugoslavian league (1923 to 1992), and then each subsequent successor country (including Serbia separately). GiantSnowman 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly like that - I already proposed this back in 2018 to the creator of this article, but its just too much work to do, the list is too huge. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an awful lot of work for one person but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It should make it easier to maintain in the long run, even if splitting it up takes a while. No reason it can't be done in stages to make it easier either. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
So, maybe we could prepare a series of drafts or work on sandboxes in the meantime, couldn't we? Oltrepier (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I creatwd the article a decade ago and it got big. I made a Serbian list separate already. What sugestions you gellows have? FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Club honours - can we just reach a consensus?

Latest comment: 1 year ago40 comments15 people in discussion

We need to actually reach a consensus then, can people put: “yes” if they would like to format honours sections like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs with the table format, or “no” if they would like to stick the current format. Cheers. Joseph1891 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • No prefer current format. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes easier to mantain and clearer. Kante4 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - we should realistically be writing things in table format where suitable for lists. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Per MOS:NO-TABLES, If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read. If all we're listing are competition names and years/seasons, we don't need the added complications of table structure. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Per Struway.--EchetusXe 11:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Per Struway. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No per Struway. Also, tables would make it difficult to include non-first-place honours (such as runners-up or bronze medals). Nehme1499 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No The layout we use right now is preferable in my opinion. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The layout we use right now Could you share where that is documented? As mentioned above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs has a table. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I was also going to ask what this actually means. The root issue here is that Joseph1891 is attempting to convert articles to his preferred style and keeps bringing this up here as he is reverted by various users. I hope we will take "current format" as the one currently in the articles (given we don't have a documented style), which would stop him changing existing styles. Number 57 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • AGF, please. What I'm seeing here is an effort to reach consensus on standardised layout and formatting. I welcome this as I've seen different variations, some of which violate MOS:BOLD. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority voted “no” . No consensus was reached, the current format should be maintained then, thanks everyone. :) Joseph1891 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You are the last person who should be attempting to close this discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Spike 'em Maybe you could close the discussion then? or at least contribute to the conversation - just a thought. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
it needs to be someone neutral, not the discussion starter, who also seems to think that a majority of people voting in one direction means no consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but tbh, I've found the majority of people involved in the football side of it extremely rude, bar a handful, don't know why the editors who have been on here for over a decade have to treat the newer editors like they're out there to sabotage their work, or ruin Wikipedia. Just be nice if you could help in a kinder way, rather than be so damn passive aggressive for no good reason, its not you personally, just pointing out a trend. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Have you ever considered the problem is actually yourself? I have always found the majority of editors in this field quite pleasant to deal with. However, I have found you to be difficult and rude from day one. Perhaps if you hadn't constantly reverted editors, claimed you had a better knowledge of non-league football, left personal attacks on talk pages, etc, you wouldn't be getting the kind of reactions you have. Number 57 15:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you be any more passive aggressive than finishing your previous comment with "Just a thought"? Spike 'em (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I’ll leave Wikipedia Joseph1891 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph1891: We are not asking you to leave Wikipedia, just to take note of the advice that is offered. It does seem that your close was premature - 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC) to 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC) is 3 hours 52 minutes. Few people are on Wikipedia constantly (we all need to sleep), and many people log into Wikipedia for a short time each day, maybe only once or twice a week - so they will have missed out. We normally recommend one week as the minimum period for consensus to form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No clearly I’m more of a disruption. I’m still just not really too experienced with the website and all I ever really wanted was help/explanations etc. just wanted to try and help make the articles on non-League football more polished, but I’ve obviously I’ve done a poor job, I’ve been pretty rude myself, not anyone else’s fault now I look at it… think it would be easier/better for everyone if I left, can’t seem to get much right on the site. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

One last thing on the honours sections

So we've determined that the tables were not a great format, just wasn't sure how to actually format the bulleted lists?

For example @Number57 believes this is the correct way to format honours sections:

Option 1: (taken from Altrincham F.C.)

  • National League
  • Northern Premier League
    • Premier Division champions 1998–99, 2017–18
    • Challenge Cup winners 1969–70, 1997–98
    • Challenge Shield winners 1979–80, 1998–99
  • Manchester League
    • Champions 1904–05, 1906–07
  • Cheshire County League
    • Champions 1965–66, 1966–67
  • FA Trophy
    • Winners: 1977–78, 1985–86
  • Cheshire Senior Cup
    • Winners 1904–05, 1933–34, 1966–67, 1981–82, 1998–99, 2004–05, 2008–09
    • League Cup winners 1932–33, 1950–51, 1963–64
  • Cheshire Amateur Cup
    • Winners 1903–04
  • Manchester and Salford Charity Cup
    • Winners 1908–09

However I thought this would count as MOS:BOLD? maybe not.

I thought this was how we should be formatting honours sections:

seems more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which I thought was what we were basing this section on?

Option 2:

League

Cups

I'm not sure what people's thoughts are on this, is option 1 better or option 2? Joseph1891 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a major problem with trying to make it a black and white choice between the two options above, because they are not listing the same things. What you need to show is how you would format the same set of honours, rather than give two examples of clubs with different honour sets. For example, based on your previous attempts to change articles to your preferred style, you split up honours from the same division (for example, Northern Premier League champions appears in the league section, but Challenge Cup and Challenge Shield appear in the cups section (without any indication as to which league's trophies they are), which is really unhelpful. Another issue with the two examples given above is that one is from a long-term non-league club and the other is from a former EFL club. Non-league clubs tend to have lots more league-specific honours (i.e. league's cup competitions) which are best to group together (rather than splitting as you tried on the example above), and have played in leagues that did not have tiers at the time they won them.
If you really wanted to get a a consensus, what you should do is show how you would format the honours of a club like Altrincham (who have a mix of divisional and cup honours from the same leagues) and see what editors think. Number 57 14:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57 that it would make comparison and discussion of the two options easier if only layout and formatting differed and not content. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph1891: please stop starting multiple discussions about the same topic, it's disruptive. GiantSnowman 15:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that too many separate discussions were created ("Club honours - can we just reach a consensus?" after "Club honours - need to reach a consensus") but I think it's fine to discuss different aspects in separate discussions.
It would be nice if people (not you specifically, GS) could also be appreciative of the effort Joseph1891 is putting in. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
How can we appreciate his efforts if he continues to change multiple articles to his favoured format whilst this discussion is still in progress? He needs to learn how discussions work. Spike 'em (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the options, Joseph1891, and using generic names. Perhaps a real world example like Altrincham which Number 57 suggested would be even better? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Option 2 is clearly inferior. Splitting the cups and leagues is unhelpful and unnecessary, making the section longer than necessary. Also, many of the cup names are now generic, leaving the reader with no idea as to what they actually are (Option 2 simply lists "Challenge Cup"). There's also no need to have the slash or tier in the National League honour. Number 57 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No strong view on either format in terms of the bolding but I echo the comment that showing an honour as simply "Challenge Cup" is completely useless, as there is no competition called simply "Challenge Cup" but many that have that as part of their name, and the above gives no indication of which of those competitions it refers to..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral on this so far, but editing to your preferred format whilst the discussion is still taking place is very poor form. Spike 'em (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well this entire discussion is pretty much pointless. Just stick with @Number 57's format, I mean clearly he likes it; (he replied to himself saying why it was better twice) Anything I suggest is pretty much meaningless as I'm now hated by @Number 57, @Spike 'em, @Redrose64, @ChrisTheDude and probably others. -- all seem to agree that it's the better format, just bin option 1 and go with option 2, should have never suggested achieving a standardised honours format really. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    I for one can assure you that I don't "hate" you. I don't even know you. I think you are being a little bit overdramatic...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Joseph1891: Where have I given that impression? Also, please review your post of 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) and having done so, I suggest that you revise your post of 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    FFS, stop the drama llama bullshit. You claim to want to do things by consensus where your actions are anything but that. People (including me) get wound up by this, but I don't hate anyone on this site. Take things a bit more slowly and listen to others a bit and things will be fine. Spike 'em (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe I just read through all of that! Ugh, And if ain't broke don't fix it! Govvy (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"just bin option 1 and go with option 2" Sorry I meant to say bin off option 2 and go with option 1! Joseph1891 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Govvy Agree should just get ride of the option 2 format, as it looks like the majority here prefer it. Will take quite a lot of editing of course, considering the vast majority of club's articles used and use option 2, even before I edited them. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Dean Huijsen

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Huijsen started his Juventus U23 career yesterday. Do I put 2021-2023 or 2021-2022 in the youth career section? His last youth match was in 2022, but played his first senior game in 2023. Dr Salvus 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd put 2023 as the end date. Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd just leave it open, if the the U23 was a one-off and he's still predominantly going to be in the youth teams. RedPatch (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Expat categories

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've been here for nearly 17 years, but maybe something happened and i did not notice, so here it goes:

Zeca (footballer, born 1988). OK, a Greek citizen now and also playing for the national team, but he spent nearly six seasons in Greece as a Portuguese citizen (before naturalisation), so he should get the "Expatriate footballers in Greece"/"Portuguese expatriate sportspeople in Greece" no? Or those have to go the minute a subject becomes naturalised? Makes no sense at all (like removing a club category when a player leaves for another one, i have seen that happen here), in my humble opinion.

Attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:D1FF:BEF3:7AE9:9F7 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen both tbh and not sure if there is a hard rule. It makes sense as you've said that he was initially a Portuguese expat in Greece so that should logically be shown, but as he is now a 'Greek footballer' it would look pretty strange to see 'xxx in Greece'. So can see both sides of the argument and personally I wouldn't really be fussed to change whatever way someone had picked as they would presumably have the opposite of these two opinions. But maybe there is something official-ish, if so I didn't notice either. Removing a club cat is different (and obviously wrong), that's people who don't know what they're doing, but the nationality/expat issues are much less clear-cut. Crowsus (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I think he should still be classed as a Portuguese expatriate in Greece. GiantSnowman 11:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Footballer post-nominals

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@OGBC1992: is of the view that if a footballer has an honour (OBE, CBE etc.) then it should be mentioned in the name= parameter of the infobox. I disagree. What are wider views? GiantSnowman 13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has provoked debate - it's exceedingly common that a footballer or sportsperson in receipt of a British/Commonwealth honour has the associated post-nominals in the infobox; for example, nearly every name in the List of football personalities with British honours (an incomplete list which I am working on).
That is, after all, the point of post-nominals. OGBC1992 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
What provoked debate primarily was your edit warring, but whatever. You will of course be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if you are having to go around adding all the post-nominals to the infoboxes, that shows there is no consensus for them to be there... GiantSnowman 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Your edits are in direct contravention of MOS:POSTNOM which says that "Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence [or] in an infobox parameter for post-nominals" - the name= parameter is NOT an "infobox parameter for post-nominals" (it is a parameter for the name only) and therefore they should not be included. GiantSnowman 14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not - the vast majority of them already have the post-nominals included; my point was that the article is an incomplete list which I am working on. As I do, I'm adding post-nominals to the few that are missing them (the reason being that in many cases, there is no mention on the page of their honour at all, so I am improving the page.)
I have not been edit warring, I have been making an edit to improve the page, and with respect, it is yourself that has been constantly reverting it without good reason! OGBC1992 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As I said - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The presence of the post-noms in the infobox is in violation of WP:POSTNOM. No issues at all with having it in the lede, but not in the infobox. Also, you are edit warring (see WP:3RR) as you have reverted me multiple times, and the fact you can't see that is concerning. My 'good reason' is WP:POSTNOM, which you keep on ignoring. GiantSnowman 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The more general infoboxes {{Infobox sportsperson}} and {{Infobox person}} both have parameters for these scenarios: honorific_prefix and honorific_suffix (neither work on {{Infobox football biography}}). Don't see why the football infobox should be different from those other infoboxes, as this would be a perfectly acceptable way to capture and display the information. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I quite agree @Joseph2302 and have requested an edit to the infobox template accordingly. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is a specific parameter, that is fine. Will @OGBC1992: therefore please remove the post-noms added incorrectly to the other parameters? GiantSnowman 15:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Gladly, if the template is edited. It will no doubt take a fair while to do so though - any help appreciated. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have sandboxed what I believe to be the required changes, and per WP:TESTCASES, they will need testing. More at Template talk:Infobox football biography#Edit request 11 January 2023. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - how does one go about testing? Simply adding the new parameter? OGBC1992 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox football biography/testcases#Honorific prefix and suffix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Rashford

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just curious, does Marcus Rashford having a dog merit inclusion on his article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's covered mainly in tabloids, but also ESPN and even The Telegraph, so I am inclined to say 'yes', worth a brief mention in the 'personal life' section. GiantSnowman 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
A humorous article which suggests Chris Smalling should be worried for his first team place, and "Marcus Rashford owns such a dog", is hardly non-trivial coverage. If I can find out what his favourite flavour of crisps or if he likes playing on a Playstation, should that be included too? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
If it's covered by reliable sources, sure. GiantSnowman 22:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Lots of people have dogs. Even footballers: I'm not aware of any law that says that footballers cannot keep dogs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Good man @ItsKesha: All my warmest wishes, RossButsy (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

National Teams' Fixtures | TBD

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all,

I've seen users including fixtures that have yet to be announced, see Hong Kong or Japan. Currently the template does not have any guidance for future unannounced fixtures but I don't feel they should be included - what are other people's opinions? Felixsv7 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also remove them. Nehme1499 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
If they haven't been announced then presumably there isn't a reliable source for them so they can't be verified and should be removed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

u-23 olypmic honors on first team senior articles.

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone! Many months ago, i opened up the same topic [[3]]. It was agreed upon to completely remove u-23 honors from the first team senior articles, as they didn't win it. Not a single regular on here disagreed with it. I knew it wasn't up to me, and it still isn't up to me, but is this still the consensus??? I had an edit war with a user on the Germany national team. He wanted the medal to stay on the article, as long as note stated that they didn't win it. I stated that it was already agreed upon here on the footballproject, to remove it. The user reported me for edit warring, which got declined.. His logic was that as long as we keep a note on the article, then it's okay. Is it tho??? I rather want a note suggesting why the honor is NOT there, rather than explaining why an honor that the team of this article didn't even win, is there. By that users logic, can we add any u-17, u20 honor to the senior articles, as long as they say btw they didn't win it, but here it is?? I would love to hear any input from anybody here. I will accept ANY consensus that will be met.. i simply tried to uphold what i thought was agreed upon back then. Speun (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Olympic medals should only be included for editions which were not age-restricted, as far as I'm aware that consensus has not changed. The medals won at age-restricted competitions should be on the article for the team that actually won it, not the senior team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, SFS. What you're saying is exactly what i replied to, to the user who kept reverting me. He wanted the 2016 U-23 silver medal that Germany won at the olympics, to be shown the their first team senior squad, as long as there was a note about it.
The problem is that those olympic honors keep being added to all the articles by random IP's and users. Speun (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
So it's fine for me to remove u-23 olympic medals from senior first team articles??? The same user will most likely revert me, if i do so. I would like if some other users would help me out here Speun (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes it is. For users with an account, I'd open a discussion on their talk pages and highlight this discussion if they revert. A bit harder for IPs but WP:3RR should have some helpful information. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Rashford

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just wondering, with regard to a recent addition at Marcus Rashford: is a club source with a quote from the manager saying "And now to get out the potential, I believe when Marcus's positioning is on the back of the defending line, there is almost no better player in the world" sufficient sourcing for us to claim that said player is "Considered one of the best players in the world" in the opening paragraph of the lead in their biography? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
how on earth could that be considered either reliable or neutral? Spike 'em (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I see there is a whole section detailing his managers' / teammates' views of him, which could do with a massive prune for similar reasons. Spike 'em (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Transfer of discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,


Crossposting this request from Village pump: Correcting Page edit.


Thanks Anas1712 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Believe I've fixed this. An IP editor added the squad of current South Korean club Ulsan Citizen FC to the article about the defunct Malaysian club USM F.C.. Have reverted back to the last clean version of the USM F.C. article, if the IP returns then will explain it to them (though they haven't edited under that IP since September). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Issues related to the 2022 African Nations Championship

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hello! I wanted to ask if there's anyone who is familiar with the upcoming tournament and, in that case, willing to help me update the page, please. I was searching for information about the squads, when I ran into reports about at least three teams - Uganda, Morocco and Libya - threatening to withdraw from the CHAN, at just a few weeks from its beginning. (although Uganda has since made a U-turn from their original decision). And it doesn't end there, apparently...

I know that CAF competitions are not strange to controversy, unfortunately, but I'm still shocked this time: if I didn't make this research, I wouldn't even know about that, because there are no real reports on the confederation's website. Plus, the article itself hasn't been updated, yet, so it actually looked like everything was going smoothly to me...

I think we should definitely keep monitoring this page, as the tournament is just about to start. What do you think about it?

Oltrepier (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I almost forgot: I think the article contains wrong hyperlinks to the national teams involved.
CHAN is actually a competition reserved to the so-called "A' national teams", which can only feature players from their own respective national leagues (for example, Ghana A' only features Ghana-based players, Algeria A' only features Algeria-based players, etc.). However, the article is filled with hyperlinks to the main national teams, so that might be another problem to fix.
The fact is, teams like Ghana, Algeria, Cameroon and Mali are completely detached from their respective "main" national squads, while other ones (for instance, Libya, Mozambique, Angola and Uganda) seemingly have the same staff. I get it, but that's still a little confusing... Oltrepier (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think they need their own articles. Those will be stats only then anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Koppapa Did you mean the A' national teams? Oltrepier (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. -Koppapa (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean these articles on some of those teams that have existed mostly for 10+ years and have scope for at least some expansion in respect of each team's history in the tournament? Crowsus (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It shouldn't link to the national team articles though because they aren't the national teams. These matches don't count towards FIFA rankings, they aren't official internationals. It's more like when the Scottish League played the Football League. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland Right, thank you for clarifying it. To be honest, it's a good thing that they created this tournament in order to put local talents on a wider spotlight, but I've always been a bit confused by its juxtaposition with the main Africa Cup of Nations...
Back to the topic, what should I do about the controversies I addressed in my first post? Would they suit better in a separate section, or should I add them to one of the already existent ones? Oltrepier (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Has this changed? Hack (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, in the end, I think I've covered most of the problems.
However, the squads page is still incomplete... Could anyone help find the necessary sources (except for Ghana, I'll do it by myself)? Oltrepier (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone who knows check if this [4] is right or not? I have no idea, but there might be shenanigans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the IP is correct, there was a minor mistake in the dateline of the reference for his appointment by Gloucester. I have fixed it now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @REDMAN 2019. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Russell Bencraft

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all. I have expanded the above article on an important figure in the early history of Southampton F.C.. My area is cricket, so there isn't all that much about his time as president of Southampton F.C., so I'm leaving a note here to see if anyone wishes to expand upon his time as a football administrator. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. When I have time, I will have a look in my many Southampton FC books, and see what I can find. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023?

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments14 people in discussion

Can someone explain why he's shown on his infobox as having a senior career ending in 2023, when his last game was in 2022? Mark Viduka had a similar story, retiring from all forms of football in 2009, but we only show his national career until 2007, as that was his last game for the Socceroos (even though he was still active until his retirement)? Why one rule for one and not the other? Why isn't Ryan Giggs shown as a Man Utd player until 2016, as he was at the club until then?- J man708 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there's an edit war going back and forth. I feel like it should be 2022 only. He officially retired beginning of January when the final game was November 2022. The paperwork was probably filed before the new year anyways. This is one of those where people aren't seeing the forest for the trees and are being sticklers because the source article has January 2023 in the year. RedPatch (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be 2022 IMHO, as he is not a player for the LAFC 2023 season. GiantSnowman 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's similar to #Dean Huijsen discussion above. Dr Salvus 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it's not. GiantSnowman 23:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree 2022 is best.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Per the infobox template documentation, the senior career section should include "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". Bale was contracted to LAFC until 2023. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you know he didn't exercise his break clause in December, but only announce retirement in January? GiantSnowman 23:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know whether he did or didn't, although I don't see why we would *assume* that he did? Per that report, he signed an 18-month contract in the summer of 2022, and unless it's *confirmed* otherwise that appears to have remained in place until his retirement was announced earlier this month. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we need reliable sources to tell us if he did that, not speculate. Spike 'em (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
He retired in 2023, and we have no indication that he was released or contract ran out in 2022. So I think 2023 makes the most sense unless we get evidence otherwise.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll put it another way - If he'd been a lesser known player back years ago, with the limited information on offer, this wouldn't even have been a question. We'd have only his last match to go off of and thus would show the last year he played and not the end of his final contract. Keep in mind, this 2023 shit only creates ambiguity, when compared to every other player whose final year coincidences with their final appearance. Had Bale done his ACL in the World Cup and retired upon his return from injury in 2024, what would we show then? - J man708 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
He was still a player into 2023, so should be listed as 2022-23. This is no different to someone who transfers teams on 2 January 2023, who would be a player at their old club in 2023, even if they didn't play. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Once again this community refuses to use WP:COMMONSENSE. His career ended in 2022, plain and simple. Nothing stops editors to mention his "official" retirement in January in text, with a source added. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
His career ends when he announces his retirement, which was 2023. Also, please WP:AGF towards other editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also inclined to say he was an LA player till 9 January as the 12 months did not expire that January but in June 2023. If he didn't retire he would still play with Los Angeles FC till the 12 months are up. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
But that's the point. He didn't once take to the field as a player in 2023. - J man708 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
he was still under contract. if a player breaks his leg and misses an entire year of his career and then retires we dont just pretend he wasn't contracted for that season. if bale had instead been sold in january to someone else we would be listed as still being a player there until 2023. he was contracted for multiple years then retired and as such should be listed as 2023. he wasnt released in 2022, he was still an active player signed to that mls team until 2023. if bale had broke his leg in december 2022 and then decided to retire at the end of 2023 cuz a year later his leg just wasnt the same... we dont just pretend he was only a player till 2022 just cuz he didnt play in 2023. lots of players go years without playing - back up goalkeepers for example. do we pretend Robert Green retired in 2017 instead of 2019 because he didnt play for 2 years?Muur (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
In both cases, the player was an active, non retired player during that time - injured or not. Bale was never available for any games in 2023, as he'd retired by their first game. - J man708 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
2023. We go by what sources say (in this case, LAFC's statement in January 2023). Nehme1499 15:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Major League Soccer is not 2022–2023 season like European football.
Gareth Bale only played for LA FC in 2022 season. New season of MLS will begin in March 2023.
2022–2023 in infobox cause misunderstanding. Gareth Bale played for LA FC both in 2022 season and 2023 season.
Infobox: 2022 / career section: Bale retired in January 2023
This is the best.
Footwiks (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologise

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know this seems a bit over the top, and sounds like drivel, but I just wanted to apologise to everyone at wiki talk football for all of the hassle I've caused, including Number 57, even though I recently reverted one of your edits on the Dartford page, shortly afterwards I suddenly realised; What I am really doing? It's not up to me what or what doesn't go on other clubs articles. Truth is I'm 18, have lots of other things going on, and have only been using the site for around 4 months now, so I think in the process of learning, I've taken my frustration out on fellow editors, which is of course unacceptable. I've been extremely rude to everyone, and a bit of nuisance - just wanted to apologise. A lot of the things I said I didn't mean, just generally quite a sensitive bloke, and let stuff get to me a tad too much. All the silly tier debates, honours sections formatting etc. I'll be leaving Wikipedia now, at least for a decent bit of time, I may create another account labelled "BCFC" or something to check up on the Bath City article here and there, (actually arranged to meet the club photographer to get some more quality photos on there) but apart from that I'll be off. Thanks so much everyone, keep up your amazing editing. Joseph1891 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, see you again in the future.--EchetusXe 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Daley Blind

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could anyone keep an eye at the infobox of Daley Blind? An IP doesn't seem to understand that only domestic league matches belong there. --Jaellee (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Esher Leopold F.C.

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I consider this a bad redirect per the AfD result. @Fram, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, and Struway2: Would you peeps mind if I redirected and merged some of the content into Esher? Which is the town where the club played and I truly believe is the right venue for this information and redirect. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought Struway2 made a good point at that AfD, it might better to have these one or two season entrants who struggle to pass GNG in a list article. It would serve as a convenient redirect target and would contain a reasonable amount of information on the team so that any reader wouldn't be left wondering who they were (as is the case currently). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Good idea, but what would be the scope/name of the article? The way I see it there are two options. You could either have an article called something like "List of FA Cup entrants" and have every single team listed, with a small description for those who don't have an article but just a link to the article for the rest, with the caveat that the list would be enormous. Or you could have an article just containing those teams with no article of their own, but I have no idea how to word a title for that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree a list covering these early teams could be viable and sensible. Something like List of early FA Cup teams or something? Or if you want to be more accurate, List of FA Cup teams (1870s) or List of FA Cup teams (1871–1880), List of FA Cup teams (1881–1890) etc., although the latter names involving dates would not be ideal for any clubs who played across multiple timespans. GiantSnowman 11:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
You could actually call it "List of FA Cup entrants", and clarify that the scope was those clubs without a Wikipedia article. As we already do with "List of Foo F.C. players" whose scope is restricted to players with 100+ appearances in national/international competitions. Many years ago, when the early batch of Featured lists of Foo F.C. players were going through, there was a discussion about naming/scope, which I wouldn't know where to find now, and the conclusion was that "List of Foo F.C. players" didn't (necessarily) imply "List of every Foo F.C. player", so long as the scope was clearly defined and didn't have exceptions that relied on subjective choice. And, as I appear to have pointed out at the AfD, WP:CSC bullet 2 says that Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. But there are still going to be a lot of them.

@Govvy: in the meantime, I see no reason why the sport section of Esher shouldn't be expanded a little. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The naming/scope thing is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Basic naming: The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. (Italics as in original) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That absolutely makes sense - in that example the scope of the article is "subjects who meet the criteria of the title, but only those who are notable enough to have an article". I just don't think I have ever seen a list article before where the scope is "subjects who meet the criteria of the title, but only those who are not notable enough to have an article"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I had some time I changed the whole sport section around at Esher and redirected there, some of your comments above seem a bit at odds to me. So I am being WP:BOLD! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Sinclair

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm seeking some input into this discussion regarding the notability of some content that has recently been added to the opening sentence of the article's lead. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW what are the chances that the two editors who want to include this factoid in the lead both edited WP for the very first time at 23:11 on Sunday......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like sockpuppeting if I ever saw it. Someone please investigate. They always write their comments at around the same time (2 minute gap, 4 minute gap second time around). It's ridiculous. Quite obvious, needs banning. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mattythewhite and ChrisTheDude: I wrote something here about the suspected sockpuppeting. I do not have time nor the brains to put in an official investigation right now so if you want to help me with that that'd be nice. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to say, the tag teaming of these two editors constantly reverting any attempt to remove this triviality from the opening sentence is still going on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • They are not heeding what they have been told and the consensus would be / is against them. I have suggested they drop it. Eagleash (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Burkina Faso footballers

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. It has recently come to my attention that the new demonym for the country of Burkina Faso is Burkinabè and no longer Burkinabé. I just wanted to put this here because I still see a lot of football articles with the old demonym. Please just keep that in mind. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed… ;-) Robby.is.on (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Robby.is.on: Hmm. Maybe it's not new. However, just go on the page for Burkina Faso, and the demonym is listed in the infobox. It says Burkinabè. I just know that most football-related articles use Burkinabé. Not exactly sure why. We need to change that. Still noteworthy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Could well be a typo at Burkina Faso and then there's WP:CIRCULAR… Robby.is.on (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
According to this, different countries use different forms (France and the UN use Burkinabè while Canada uses Burkinabé). Still, "Burkinabè" seems to be the correct form in Burkina Faso. Nehme1499 09:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please back up your assertions with reliable sources. We shouldn't use other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There sources were included in the Wiktionary page. Nehme1499 09:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. But did you check whether the sources verify the claims?
  • https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000019509867 has "Burkinabé".
  • https://toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/pdf/DUGEF.pdf states a preference for Burkinabé. Here's a translation by Google Translate of page 9: "Burkinabé, Burkinabé / Burkinabée. Variant: Burkinabais, Burkinabaise. The spelling variants Burkinabè, Burkina-be, Burkinabe and lexical variants Burkinais and Burkina-Fassiens have also been used. The emerging trend favors the Burkinabé form, without feminine, but with an -s ending in the plural. Moreover, it appears that the name Burkinabais is little used". Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I checked, that's why I wrote the pages above. The first link doesn't work, though. You have to open this, go to the end of the page and do the verification question. This is the 1994 PDF link (again, go to page 17 and you'll find "Burkinabè(-)*. Burkinabè(-)."). Apparently something changed between 1994 (the date of this document) and today for legifrance.gouv.fr to have updated their table. Nehme1499 10:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, good. Apparently something changed between 1994 (the date of this document) and today for legifrance.gouv.fr to have updated their table That can probably explained by what toponymie.gouv.qc.ca calls the "emerging trend". Robby.is.on (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Britannica has "Burkinabé": https://www.britannica.com/place/Burkina-Faso. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • NB this move request from a while back for the Burkinabe disambiguation page where I tried to get the diacritic corrected, but it was instead stripped. —  AjaxSmack  00:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Belgian Pro League

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have just learned that User:Pelotas moved the Belgian First Division A article to the name Belgian Pro League without requesting an RM. Although some could see this as WP:BOLD, I think that it could be a controversial move and should require an RM. However, since the move has already been made, what can be done? An RM to move it to the old title to prove that the new title is better? Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Depends, if you think that the move is potentially wrong or uncontroversial you can either move the page back yourself, or request it at WP:RM#TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". Then you can open an RM afterwards if you think it makes sense. Ortizesp (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Alright. I don't think the move is potentially wrong, however. I just felt it was weird that it was moved unilaterally. Thanks, though! Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Monthly awards

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Are monthly awards, such as “goal of the month” or “save of the month” sufficiently noteworthy to include in a player’s Honours section? While I’m here, what about “Player of the Month”? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel that they are not of long-term significance and very much subjective - a newspaper, TV station or club's programme compilers may have three different ideas about which goal or save was "best". Contrast being the top scorer for a competition or league season, which is an objective criterion, not open to doubt. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The quality of a goal scored, who the best player is, who's got the shinest shoes... All things we really shouldn't have in honours list. Outside of something like the golden ball none should be included. The award for the best goal for any time period should never be mentioned, unless it's got so much press it should be in the prose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
usually just thinks like actual league player/manager of the month are seen as notable there. so premier league manager of the month would be notable but man city player of the month wouldnt be. Premier League Player of the Month has a wikipedia page after all so is a notable award. man city player of the month however...Muur (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say no. If a player wins Goal of the Month, that could be mentioned in the prose, but I wouldn’t mention it in the honours section. Same for saves. – PeeJay 11:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Greaves 266 or 268 goals?

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hi all, I’m new on here, I hope it’s OK to ask this question on here. My question regards Jimmy Greaves who scored 268 in 381 matches for Spurs. However Spurs do not include his 2 Charity Shield appearances and 2 goals. Does Wikipedia have to agree with Spurs’ official goal total of 266 in 379?  Harry Kane is soon to bring this record into the spotlight. Some might say as long as it’s sourced, but there are also many websites that show his full 268 goals. Greaves scored 220 league, 32 FA Cup, 5 League Cup, 4 European Cup, 5 Cup Winners Cup and 2 Charity Shield goals, 268 goals. Other players all have their Charity/Community Shield goals counted, Nunez and Alvarez the latest for example. I recently edited his article, twice it has been replaced back to 266, when in fact he scored 268 for Spurs. Spare Koppers (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why the Charity Shield stats shouldn't be included. Nehme1499 11:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"Does Wikipedia have to agree with Spurs’ official goal total of 266 in 379?" - no, we are under no obligation to replicate the figure Spurs choose to report for whatever reason. If other reliable sources say he scored 268 in 381 we should report that. It may be that Spurs choose to exclude the Charity Shield games deliberately or it may be human error, but we are not obliged to do likewise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I’ve changed it back to 268 with a sky sports reference. Spare Koppers (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spare Koppers: per The Spurs Alphabet: isbn 0-9514862-8-4

  • FL: 332* apps 220 gls
  • Includes one abandoned match.
  • FAC: 36 apps, 32 gls
  • FLC: 8 apps, 5 gls
  • Eur: 14 apps, 9 gls
  • Other: 40 apps, 40 gls
  • Total: 420 apps, 306 gls

Regards Govvy (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Does it note if the two Charity Shields are included in the "other"? Any indication of what all the other "others" were......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You can get the same numbers Govvy posted from Bob Goodwin's Complete Record. The two goals from from the 1962 Charity Shield (11 August 1962) are included in Other. The remaining other goals are from tours, testimonials and friendlies. It's hard to believe that back then clubs arranged mid-season friendlies because they wanted more games. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Strangely it doesn't breakdown other. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Here is the book page @Govvy refers to, by Bob Goodwin. The Spurs Alphabet - Bob Goodwin - Google Books The Spurs Odyssey also briefly mentions these extra 40 goals, but again no reference to what the other matches/goals were. Spurs Odyssey - Extract from The Golden Boot - Jimmy Greaves Like @Jts1882 says, friendly matches mostly including the Costa Del Sol Tournament in 1965 and 1966 and a tour of South Africa in 1963. Spare Koppers (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
According to Bob Goodwin's Complete Record, Greaves scored 19 goals on tours (p585-7), 16 in friendlies (p616-70) and 3 in testimonials (p638). These pages list the matches, team and goalscorers. That's 38 in friendlies, which along with 2 in the Charity Shield makes 40 others. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy's article is pretty good, I am wondering how close to FA class it is. Govvy (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC about English variety consistency in (Men's) FIFA World Cup articles

Latest comment: 1 year ago73 comments28 people in discussion

I was going to write a longer RfC comment discussing the main issues here and some year-specific past discussions, but have determined to keep it short and sweet, and general. We have two questions, some !vote options, and a simple information table. As there seems to be no dispute regarding the consistent use of dmy date format, there is no question on this and the result should not be taken to affect this. As women's football culture is distinct from men's, there is no question on the women's tournament and the result should not be taken to affect this. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As English variety is concerned, and this can be contentious in relation to the sport, neutral notice to please refrain from arguments that pit the United States and the United Kingdom against each other.

  1. Should all FIFA World Cup (men's tournament) articles be written in the same variety of English?
  2. Should all FIFA World Cup (men's tournament) articles use the same term for the sport?
Current status
Tournament ENGVAR Term
1930 Uruguay Commonwealth football
1934 Italy British football
1938 France Comm football
1950 Brazil Brit football
1954 Switzerland Brit football
1958 Sweden Comm football
1962 Chile United States football
1966 England Brit (template)
Comm (practice)		 football
1970 Mexico Comm football
1974 West Germany Brit (template)
Comm (practice)		 football
1978 Argentina Mixed
(Use of "recognising", "symbolized", "commercialized", "installed" as some examples of conflicting vocab...)		 football
1982 Spain Brit football
1986 Mexico Comm football
1990 Italy Brit (template)
Comm (practice)		 football
1994 United States US soccer
1998 France Comm football
2002 Korea Japan Mixed
(Use of "organized", "favourites")		 football
2006 Germany Comm football
2010 South Africa Mixed
(Use of "favored" and "favourably". One on top of the other. Also "minimise", "colours", "against", "organisers", "kilometre". Describing costs in £ primarily would suggest Brit intention)		 football (except in the proper name of flagship stadium Soccer City)
2014 Brazil Brit (template)
Comm (practice)		 football
2018 Russia Brit (template)
Mixed (one use of "organized" in lead, rest Commonwealth)		 football (one use of soccer)
2022 Qatar Brit (template)
Mixed (one use of "traveling", otherwise British)		 football
2026 United States, Mexico, Canada US (template and practice) soccer (one use of football)
2030 (unawarded) Brit (template and practice) football
2034 (unawarded) Comm football
Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose 1 and 2 per the national ties provision of ENGVAR. Using American English, American-style dates, and USCS measurements are only natural for events that are hosted in the United States. It reflects what the most prolific and useful media sources for those events use, especially when it comes to planning and preparations. If we do have to standardize, then using the least confusing term for Item 2 (aka Option A or C) would be best; there's still other popular codes of football out there, and some do have international competitions that could be confused with the World Cup, as absurd as that would be. SounderBruce 04:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A, and 2A but association football at first mention only, then football. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Seconding Kesha's view. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: you may agree with @ItsKesha:'s view, but gentle reminder that RfCs generally prefer arguments to counting !votes. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A. The 2026 was stable with use of football until early last year when it was changed. I think all articles should follow the same format for consistency. Failing that, as a compromise, we can include soccer in brackets in 1994 and 2026. Valenciano (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2D. Use consistent English and for the first mention of the lead using soccer in brackets being "association football (soccer)" (I would use assocation football throughout the lead). Thereafter, just use "football" as per ItsKesha RedPatch (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • For the WCs not held in an anglophone country, I'd use Common English.
For the WCs held in anglophone country, I'd use the variety of the hosting country.
For the 2026 WC, I'd use US English because the greatest part of the games will be in the US or if we don't want to discriminate Canada or Mexico, Common English.
Dr Salvus 13:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not believe there needs to be a consistent style with regard to the spelling of words and date formats, such as "recognize" versus "recognise" or "December 18, 2022," versus "18 December 2022." Other than people who aren’t familiar with MOS:DATECOMMA, nobody is going to be the least bit confused by any of those usages. I also don’t seriously believe the use of "soccer" versus "football," which is really what the question is about, is going to confuse anyone either, but I think we could very reasonably adhere to the intent behind WP:ENGVAR by referring to the sport the first time as either "association football (soccer)" or "soccer (association football)," linking the form that is not set in parentheses, with the form used reflecting the predominant term used in the English-speaking host country(ies), if any, and then using the non-parenthesized form the rest of the way (except, of course, in quotations, citations, and proper names, but those are always exceptions anyway). The World Cup does not belong to the Brits or to the Commonwealth and there is no reason whatsoever to demand that their variety of English apply to an event not being staged predominantly in their countries. I recall a similar argument some years back about the Circuit of the Americas, the racetrack in Austin that hosts the US Grand Prix. Some European editors were demanding that the article use British spellings, and metric units, because F1 is a European-based series. But the track is an American racetrack that happens to host an F1 race (and it now hosts other series as well), so the normal rules of WP:ENGVAR prevailed. I believe that the 2026 World Cup article's strongest ties are to the USA first and Canada second (in that order only because the USA will host a lot more games than Canada will) and that no other English-speaking country has any particular tie to that particular year's tournament. Thus, under standard principles of ENGVAR, American English would prevail. British English would clearly prevail as to 1966, US English as to 1994. I have no idea what the prevailing terms are in South Africa (2010), though I recall their president opening "the FIFA Soccer World Cup" prior to the first game that year. 1995hoo (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    Forgot to mention that I also believe that if you folks seriously believe that there is no strong national tie to any country, then WP:RETAIN should plainly apply to all World Cup articles because that is exactly what WP:RETAIN says to do. 1995hoo (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @1995hoo: You know more than most that this RfC is not "really about" the soccer/football debate, so I ask that you strike that comment. Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I stand by my comment and will not revise it. I don’t necessarily mean to say that you personally are actually focused on the "soccer versus football" argument, but that’s certainly an endless bone of contention all over the place on Wikipedia and is the primary aspect of these squabbles—I mean, heck, the anti-US mafia have occasionally even tried to change the Major League Soccer article to refer to "football." 1995hoo (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, thank you for expanding on it, then. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The reasons you give for your targeted canvassing seem to be in opposition to your replies to me here. Kingsif (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not going to respond to your attempts to bait me into something. 1995hoo (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to bait anything, I felt your comments needed to be noted. I do not know why you have assumed maliciousness of my comments at every turn. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    Asking recent commenters to address a broader RFC that opened just before their comments is not canvassing, it's trying to keep the discussion centralized. oknazevad (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    Since the RfC was already mentioned, and given the content of both the request and the edit reason accompanying it, the line has been crossed. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    I’ve conceded below that, in view of a policy about which I did not know, I should have worded my comment differently in telling those users of the RFC. Certainly we all know that "it was already mentioned further up the talk page" doesn’t mean people will see it. People often don’t read the whole page (after all, we’ve all seen situations where a topic is opened multiple times), so I see nothing wrong with mentioning that the RFC is open, but I concede it should be done in a more neutral way. In view of that, I will not discuss that issue further because it doesn’t benefit anyone to do so. 1995hoo (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Use association football. I don't understand how a global international event can have national ties, regardless of where it is held. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Since I have already recently shown my views, and had no intention of closing this myself, I will add comments. I find that ENGVAR is about cultural ties, not geographic ones. Where there are British footballers who play/have played in the United States, even for most of their career, the articles are written in BritEng. As with Canadian sportspersons in the US and vice versa. Similarly, the culture of football may have once been British but it is now a global product; therefore, it has no geographic ties. But it does have cultural ties, to an international community. The World Cup is exactly that - the World - and this culture, like that of a player from one place who lives in another, does not change. For these reasons, and because there is already evidence of edit warring to insert Commonwealth English at World Cup articles using localised spellings (even though nobody will be confused, anonymous editors still believe there should be general spellings, consistently, and whether it is the edits or the reverts that are disruptive, denying Comm English causes disruption), I believe there should be consistency. Since it is clear that the World Cup's cultural ties indicate Commonwealth (i.e. 'international compromise') English, support 1A. In regards terminology, in line with consistency, I see that our articles, even with most already using Commonwealth and some non-US ones using US English, the overwhelming majority use "football". I also echo my views from a different discussion that, if you are at an article with FIFA in the title, there will be no confusing which football it is about. So, I would support 2B. However, if there is branding of some instances of the World Cup using "soccer", I think this should be mentioned. I don't have any personal objections to using "association football", which is the correct full name everywhere, and would not object to it. But, I think best would be 2D: basically, 2B (or 2A), but where branding of an instance of the event uses "soccer", both should be mentioned. Using "football" for consistency and "soccer" for the individual event's identity. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B, excepting the first mention of "association football" in the lead. Just because an international tournament is held in a country (or countries) where the sport is called "soccer" doesn't mean that there is a "strong national tie" to overcome the fact that the vast majority of the world refers to the sport as either "association football" or simply "football." There is ample precedent to use "soccer" for tournaments held solely in nations that use that term (i.e. 1994 Men's and 1999, 2003, and 2015 Women's tournaments), but (at the risk of invoking WP:OSE) I note that the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup being held in Australia ("soccer") and New Zealand ("football") uses the term "football" in the article even though more matches will be held in Australia. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B, I don't think it's a secret that football is more popular in Britain than in the other English countries. And that they are a primary exporter of football news to the world than other English speaking countries. So logically, we should use commonwealth English. Also, the sport is globally best known as football, so 2B seems to be obvious solution. Would be fine with the first mention being for association football on the pages.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    The sport is not globally known as "football". Soccer is used in the USA, Canada and other places, the first two with over 360 million speakers of the language. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2A As it is a global event, I don't think that any particular national ties should alter how one iteration of the competition is worded compared with another. As a result, I think we should assume that a person reading each of these 24 articles will not necessarily think football refers to the sport any one of us might think it refers to so it should be association football at the very least in the first mention. The wording behind ENGVAR doesn't really cover an international situation like this where no variation can really claim to be the correct version. I also don't think that was the spirit behind ENGVAR either. I don't know if Commonwealth English is the best to use but certainly an international English would be better than a local one which makes a series of articles inconsistent with one another. No objection to using association football (soccer) in the first mention. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to both the article dialect should match the country that the event is hosted, so 2010 should use South African English and 2026 should use US English. Not even sure what the difference is between British and Commonwealth English, so seems pointless arguing between the two of them. All articles should use the term used in that country plus association football, with one of them in brackets e.g. "the 2026 FIFA World Cup is a soccer (association football) competition" or "the 2026 FIFA World Cup is an association football (soccer) competition". We should be compliant with MOS:TIES. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1B, the common usage in the particular country and 2, no. The term used in the host country should be used. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The above comment was left as a result of targeted WP:CANVASSING. This RfC was already mentioned at that talk page. Additionally, while leaving messages to previously-interested users to participate can be acceptable, it is not when it is done by misrepresenting the discussion and telling only people who support one ideology to !vote a certain way in an attempt to influence the outcome. Kingsif (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    Just want to note that I had never seen that policy before and was unaware of it. It's too late to do anything about it now, but I will do my best to abide by it in the future. 1995hoo (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for saying you will attempt to not canvass in future. As you say, too late in this case, with the policy in place as a reminder that engaging in canvassing is not considered good etiquette (i.e. ignorance of the rule is not an excuse for engaging in such tactics). For my part, as the person who opened the RfC, if I open more in future I will try to place even more neutral notices of discussion to discourage this kind of thing. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B Makes sense to use football as that is what the majority of the English speaking world call it (sorry US!). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not exactly sure what's being asked. But I do know that over at Main Page under the 'in the news' section. Association football is used & not pipe-linked as either 'football' or 'soccer'. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the relevance you find? The main page has its own guidelines on disambiguation terms, and with different scope and purpose I don't see why they should affect an individual project's any more than anything else. Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Merely pointing out that at Main page, they recognise that the sport's called "association football". Seems to me, those who favour "football" & those who favour "soccer", should settle on "association football". You'll note that the name of the sport-in-question's page is called Association football, rather then Football or Soccer. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is questioning what the full name of the sport is, at least, this RfC isn't. It's asking if there should be a specific policy about terminology use. Are you !voting that it should be association football? Because it looks like you're trying to point out that since the MP does something, there shouldn't be debate about it elsewhere, which isn't an argument. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B except for the initial mention as "association football" or "association football (soccer)" for US-based articles. I've been lurking on these recent discussions and I am not sure what the opposition to an initial use of the term "association football" is because it is an easily and readily recognized term for the sport that is unambiguous and, when used only initially and not throughout, not cumbersome. I'm not sure I understand the difference between "Commonwealth" English and British English, but consistency across articles would be preferable to changing based purely on the location of the tournament. Even Americans understand that the term "football" has different meanings (despite what Lays and Peyton Manning would have you believe), so I don't see a huge issue with the wording, and I'm not convinced that national ties is a super compelling argument for an event that is followed by most of the world that call the sport football. Won't stop the edit wars unfortunately but I think that's probably the best choice. Jay eyem (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    It should be Soccer (association football) first on US/Canada based articles, with the latter used in the rest of the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Hmm not sure that makes sense to me. If you were to write "soccer (association football)", would you not then proceed to use "soccer" throughout rather than "football"? Plus from personal experience on Wikipedia, I think that wording would be FAR more likely to be changed by IPs editing warring over the use of the term football. I don't know if English leagues or players constantly see the terminology changed from "football" to "soccer" with the frequency it happens in the reverse for American articles, but I suspect it doesn't, and I guarantee any article relating to the World Cup would see that swiftly changed. Jay eyem (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B To me, it seems sensible to use 'football' It's what most of the English-speaking world call the game. Paul W (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment, not to nitpick, but while tis true most of the world uses "football", most of the (first language) English-speaking world uses "soccer": America, Canada, Austalia, South Africa, Austalia and Ireland all widely use soccer, don't know about NZ. Minor, and probably unimportant point, I know... :) TheUnicornsLion (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
      NZ bit of both. Rugby union obviously big there. But, if you count India and Pakistan as native English, they use football, too. It's too divided and Comm English doesn't have a preference, hence separate questions. Kingsif (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Association football - for all the men's FIFA World Cup tournaments. The sport's page is named Association football, not Football or Soccer. Indeed this very WikiProject itself, should be re-named. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    On your last (off-topic) point: the top of this page shows that in August someone proposed moving (renaming) this project, and it was !voted (reasoned) not to. Kingsif (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B Since the sport is mostly known worldwide as football and/or some literal translation of it as was the case for Qatar and Arabic, I think that football should be used since at the very least 90% of all readers can immediately understand what sport the article is about, and since the word football will be linked to the article with the full name of the sport, this would be the perfect solution for less than 10% or 5% of readers that come from countries that call it some other name, therefore they won't be confused about what sport the article is about since the link would lead the reader directly to the full name article, where all confusion would be removed. However, using only the word "soccer" like it is currently the case with the upcoming World Cup in 2026, this is confusing for the majority of the readers who haven't used that word once in their entire lives, and most importantly: there is a big misconception, that articles written in English will only be read by people from English-speaking countries and therefore should be written with their satisfaction in mind while not giving a thought about the rest of the world since they can have articles in their own languages, and as someone who has English as my third language, I don't agree that football-related English articles, especially World Cup articles should satisfy only people from English-speaking countries, considering that English is literally THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE, most readers regardless of where they're from, mostly visit Wikipedia articles written in English, therefore consideration should also be given to them. Not to mention that the article about the World Cup 2026 doesn't even care about the fact that Mexico (which uses football) is also hosting only for the reason that there will be more matches in the US, which is simply disrespectful not to mention that is gives a sense of superiority of the US compared to Mexico, without forgetting that even parts of Canada where they use football are also completely ignored. Since it's a "united" bid or it claims to be, there should at the very least be a use of both words in whatever order: like soccer/football, soccer (association football), or association football (soccer), which would also make sense for the international audience that will be visiting the 2026 World Cup article, for which competition there will be 48 participant countries, out of which at the very least 40 of them have populations that call the sport football, so a compromise like soccer/football, soccer (association football), or association football (soccer) is absolutely necessary. Nori2001 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B. For consistency. Amongst English-speaking lands - especially England - football is a predominant winter sport in those of the British Commonwealth. Football is the preferred term in those nations except for a few local markets, where other names are used. See the ABC sports page for example. We should go with what works best for those most likely to make use of our coverage. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1A and 2B for consistency reasons. The use of Football for the FIFA World Cup is near universal and we should follow RS. I think it is worth throwing in the occasional use of Soccer though. For the English variant, it is a worldwide event so going for a generic English makes the most sense. Gusfriend (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose both I see no need for consistency in English variations among these articles. I am an American and expect to see British English in articles about events that take place in the UK. Similarly, I expect to see American English in an article about an event that will take place mostly in the US, including all games from the quarterfinals on. I have no problem using "football" as long as "soccer" is mentioned in the lead. Even the most diehard fan of American gridiron football fans knows that the word "football" is used for several sports. The risk of confusion is negligible. Americans can read content written in British English with no problem and vice versa. Readers know which sport is being discussed. But if spellings like "colour" and "criticise" are used in an article about an event being held primarily in the US, there will be four years of edit warring and strife. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1B, namely it should say "... football (known as soccer in North America) ...", because that's what the MOS tells us to do and because that shows respect for all our readers. See MOS:COMMONALITY: "Terms that differ between varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, 'the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car ....'" Instant Comma (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose both 1995hoo and Cullen328 have made excellent arguments as to why consistency isn't needed for these articles. I understand the desire to standardize things, but I don't feel like this would be an improvement to the status quo. Nemov (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Does this have to do with the intros, where currently we've got [Association football|football] & [Association football|soccer]? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not directly, but it would affect them. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the pro-Soccer & pro-Football folks should agree to accept Association football. After all, that's what the sport's page name is. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not a policy or usage-based reasoning. I mean, "use full names of everything always", I guess is an argument, but not one that looks at why things are commonly called what they are. I now see you have !voted with this reason, but can you try to reformat it properly. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The RFC question/options are too complex/confusing. Thus my 'survey' vote's format. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
They are effectively yes/no questions that everyone else understood. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic
How is "why things are commonly called what they are" going to help here? In the places where the game is called "soccer", it's because other more popular game or games are called "football" there. In the places where it's called football, it's the common name. Two entirely different reasons. I don't see how that can help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This seems a pointless debate because everyone else seems to have understood except you (two?), but let's explain how reasoning works - "X calls it this, so call it this" doesn't address the scope of this discussion, project or Wikipedia. Letting oneself be informed by different policies and usage of terms on Wikipedia, and putting them in the context of the (men's) World Cup, is examining how different names are and aren't used in the appropriate scope and applying that knowledge to form a relevant reasoning. It's like taking into account your own tastes and dietary requirements rather than having the same thing for breakfast as the last person you saw. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what that comment means. "Letting oneself be informed by different policies and usage of terms on Wikipedia..." is not clear at all. It's the sort of language I was happy to leave behind when I quite working in large, bureaucratic organisations. Maybe aim for a little bit more plain English please. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
In the simplest of terms, the discussion is looking at something specific. Arguments should be made in light of that, not by broadly pointing at something else and saying "copy that". Did you (two?) really not get that from the actual RfC questions posted at the top? Or just want to pointlessly debate? Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That's NOT the simplest of terms, and, along with your previous comment, contains a personal attack. Give it up now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no personal attacks anywhere, and I have been trying to explain at length. You're clearly not in the mood. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
So "just want to pointlessly debate?" was meant as a compliment? HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Not everything has to be roses to not be an attack. That's a phrase of exasperation, and even if taken extremely literally is far from a personal attack. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I've requested input from Wikipedia:Sports. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • ... and since GoodDay has, hmm. For my part, even as an American strongly backing my own dialect (and thus, preferring "soccer"), I'm neutral on the subject. Maybe it's just that in following English football since the 1970s, the use of Commonwealth English and its terms with it doesn't bother me. I don't feel the need to police association football articles for American ties sufficient to flip them to "soccer;" somehow I can manage to look at an article and figure out that a reference to "football" neither means gridiron football nor drives me to rages. Ravenswing 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    Feel welcome to !vote above. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Also off-topic

Maybe it was already attempted, but if not. Why hasn't anyone opened up an RM at Association football, to get it moved to Football? GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • The article on the sport is titled after the full name, which is the same among all varieties of English and makes sense for the universal article on the subject in the same way it makes sense on the MP (anyone could stumble upon it contextless, the cultural ties are 'global'). Of course, what other articles do is still outside the scope of this RfC and it would be neat if you'd stop referring to them as if it means something since you've already distracted discussion. Kingsif (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
It would be neat if you would tone down your attitude. Yes, you've open up this RFC, but that doesn't make you the boss of it. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Unwarranted sarcasm, there's maybe some exasperation in my tone, which isn't a bad thing, and you're the cause. You keep asking off-topic questions about OTHERSTUFF, I'm asking you not to do that. It's fine to have questions, but not ones that are either answered by reading the original RfC or should be obvious to someone with your WP tenure. Someone has to keep this RfC on-topic. Do you have anything to add or did you just want to express annoyance at my efforts? Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Concerning this RFC, it's best we not converse directly with each other, going forward. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you've read my comments with a tone of internal voice that does not reflect the actual comments, perhaps reflecting your views, if you think we're at that point. But very well, if you don't wish to communicate, fine, but please don't act like you're bearing down formal judgement when you say it. If you are still confused about RfC, maybe someone else can spend time trying to explain instead. But, if you are saying you don't want me to communicate with you so that you can continue to be off-topic unfettered, I'm afraid such comments would be collapsed as is typical of RfC discussions. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Outdated

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone needs to update Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football, so that the teams are in the correct sections. Also the categories of these userboxes should be updated. Catfurball (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Aston Villa F.C.
  2. Bobby Robson
  3. History of Gillingham F.C.
  4. History of Stoke City F.C.
  5. IFK Göteborg
  6. Ipswich Town F.C.
  7. Leek Town F.C.
  8. Priestfield Stadium
  9. York City F.C.

Matchday vs actual date of a match

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In a club season article, when a matchday is brought forward (i.e., date has been changed), should it appear before or after previous non-played matchdays (e.g. matchday 10 is to be played before matchday 8)? SLBedit (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In most cases that I've seen, matchdays are set at the beginning of the year, and if any match is rescheduled it's still part of that matchday number but simply played at a different time. However, I'm not sure for entire matchdays being moved back/forward, I haven't seen anything like that since 2020. If I were to give my opinion on this subject, I'd say before. Chronologically is better for me. The numbers are less important. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:SALORDER covers chronological lists. Don't list matches in an order that isn't chronological. However, there's no reason to not include details of a postponement in that list. See 2022–23 Kilmarnock F.C. season#Premiership for an example when matches were called off after the Queen died. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Yup, chronological with a note. Kante4 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

fc in st pauli

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments7 people in discussion

why does/should FC St. Pauli get displayed as such in player articles instead of St. Pauli? FC Barcelona gets listed as Barcelona so where;s the consistency?Muur (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:KARLSRUHER. GiantSnowman 10:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean that says one word names. This is two. Muur (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muur: In German football, it is not common practice to list clubs by just the town/city names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Without getting into whether or not the FC should be included, saying "St. Pauli" is different because the place name has a space in it is trying to find a technicality to claim its different when it's not. Sure there's 'technically' two words, but it's like a "New York" or "Buenos Aires" which despite a two worder is still a singular place name like and the same as a "London" or "Paris" and not a "true two worder" like a "Bayern Munich" which is 'something + a place name'. St Pauli is just a place name just like all the others. RedPatch (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
That guideline explains it for German teams that end in -er and then have the FC/SC after it, which doesn't look to apply here? St. Pauli is the name of the place (a noun), and so St. Pauli doesn't cause the grammatical errors that Karlsruher does (as Karlruher is an adjective). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read most parts of WP:KARLSRUHER, Joseph2302? The aspect you're referring to only makes up about a third of the article. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, in English language sources, it’s more common to drop the “FC” or equivalent. Check out this BBC story from last week, which just refers to the club in question as “St Pauli”. – PeeJay 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Overlinking" clubs in football box templates?

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Is there a guideline or consensus here about not linking a club twice in {{Football box collapsible}} on club season articles? Sakiv (talk · contribs) thinks so. SLBedit (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Could you show us a particular example? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: 2022–23 S.L. Benfica season. I have never read anything saying we can't link the main club of a season article more than once, or even not linking it at all, like Sakiv told me. I think he made it up. SLBedit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
MOS:REPEATLINK is probably most relevant. Hack (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and that's what I pointed out to him, explaining that, generally, there's no overlink in templates, but he said I couldn't repeat links because previous recent season articles had no links repeated. Then I asked him about consensus at WP:FOOTY, and he didn't reply. Notice how Sakiv has not been participating in this discussion... SLBedit (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
You can read that section of the MOS either way. Hack (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Those match lists looks good to me: the club name linked once at the top and not on every single line. I don't think adding on every line "significantly aids the reader" Spike 'em (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It's the current compromise there; to link every club only once per (sub-)section. SLBedit (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for sources with Lowland League statistics

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello!

As I'm working on one of my drafts, I need to introduce complete statistics for the player's spell at Celtic's B Team, which has been competing in the Lowland Football League (one half of Scotland's fifth tier league) in the last few years. However, I'm struggling to find sources that include detailed statistics for players competing in that championship. Apparently, of all the sites I visited, only Transfermarkt collects data for each player, but obviously I can't use them. Plus, as @Robby.is.on and I discussed over here, fan-made sources are not a solution, either.

So, does anyone know about other potentially useful sources I can take advantage of?

Oltrepier (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland I think you're the right person to ask for help in this case... Oltrepier (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if there are any I'm afraid. Anything that isn't the SPFL is difficult to source. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland That's fine, I've learned that having to search for non-league stats can be pretty tricky...
Thank you for joining in, anyway! : D Oltrepier (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

National Teams - Coaching history

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In a continued effort to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams an accurate representation of best practice for National Team pages, does anyone have a preference regarding the following:

  1. Argentina or Yemen - How do we want to display sources?
  2. Croatia - When statistics are available, should a Tournament column be included?
  3. Switzerland - Should statistics be minimised for users to expand?
  4. Luxembourg - Should each Coaching history section include the header: The following managers have been in charge of Templatonia's national squad:
  5. Cambodia or Hong Kong - How to display when the table was last updated
  6. Jordan, Ecuador and Canada - How to display coaches that have managed numerous times & should we include months of management?
  7. Egypt - When displaying joint coaches, should they be on the same line or separated with < br>

This is by no means an exhaustive list and I've just tried to find examples of the points I'm looking to clarify. Any input would be appriciated!

Felixsv7 (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with the one at Scotland as it is a featured article. That would match Hong Kong in terms of last update and the opposite to Switzerland per MOS:COLLAPSE. The Luxembourg sentence is basic, so I'd give a wee bit of detail like the Scotland one does. If you have a couple of sources to verify all rather than one for each individual manager then I'd group them together like the Scotland one or Argentina if no statistics are available (although, they should be for Argentina). I'd say no to the tournament column, it makes it look cluttered and the information should be available in the history section (and the individual manager articles) anyway. If there aren't any statistics available, I'd stick with a simple bulleted list with just the years and one entry per manager. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
1. I would say regarding sourcing, go like Yemen with a source for each coach. Having one or two for everything looks a bit neater, but apart from the first time someone is putting the list together, finding a new source which does this every time there's a new coach is exhausting and then the format of having one or two for everything ends up having the most recent coaches not sourced or having at the beginning one source for say the first 45 coaches and then five more sources each one for one of the most recent coaches.
2. I see no reason not to include it.
3. No, just makes many users miss the information.
4. Yes, tables should have prose information to explain what you're looking at.
5. I think the date of the match and opposition is sufficient. No need to include the score. Even the opposition isn't neccesary.
6. Regarding coached who've managed numerous times, I think we should repeat as is done on the Jordan page. Having the terms separately under the same coach line makes it confusing (Say in Ecuador I'm looking, I see Luis Suarez was coach in 1998, then Carrera and Sevilla in 1998 and 1999, then Gomez until 2004, and then who's from 2004 until Vizuete takes over in 2007? Oh I have to go back to the top of the column to see Luis Suarez had a second period there. It's very confusing and out of order). Also, navboxes of managers have the repetition too. If we have the info about the months, I think we should include.
7. I think that depends on the format. If it's a list like here on Egypt, on the same line is preferable. If it's a clear table like on Cambodia, separated with
looks better.
That's my thoughts, thanks Felixsv7! --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • So I think the only thing that needs agreeing upon is whether the coach should be displayed multiple times and I'm inclined to agree with @SuperJew: as it makes it easier to view in chronological order when bulleted. Otherwise I'll put the template section explanation up on the Template but feel free to edit with more accurate prose if you come up with something. Anyone else have any input? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Haveri

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I've just finished working on a test page for the player, so I wanted to ask for your opinion on it.

I don't know if he already fulfills WP:GNG, but I still want to try...

Oltrepier (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's always a struggle with non-English sources, but I think it looks to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman Definitely true! I think I've chosen my sources carefully enough, though: as an Italian, I can cover for national sources, while the links in Albanian are taken from the federation's official website, as well as Shkodra Sport, a site that has also been cited for players like Armando Broja, Elseid Hysaj and Loro Boriçi. So, it should be fine from that point of view.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to help! Oltrepier (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up - pieces from the Albanian Football Federation won't count towards GNG as they're not viewed as independent. GiantSnowman 17:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman Oh, ok, thank you for clarifying. Oltrepier (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Asnawi Mangkualam

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I've just noticed that someone uploaded a new image on the player's page, but the source looks unclear: plus, I'm not familiar with Commons' guidelines on pictures taken from social networks...

Could anybody take a look at it, please?

Oltrepier (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Moises Caicedo

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could a admin protect the page for Moises Caicedo before all the IP vandals from around the world heavily edit the page following his new agency releasing a pre-prepared statement trying to force a transfer through? Would request through the usual pages for protection but this normally takes 12 hours or so and I can envisage at least 100 edits will need reverting by then RM-Taylor (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Protected for three days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Page has had semi-protection on it twice in the last month I believe so may be one to keep an eye on for a while. RM-Taylor (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

List of all UEFA matches by a team

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I came across FC Twente in European football, which appears to be simply a list of all games played by FC Twente in UEFA competitions. This strikes me (a very much non-footy person) as something that would be against WP:NOTDATABASE, but I wanted to check with people frequenting this talk page before going to AfD. Is there any precedence with these kinds of articles? Ljleppan (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously that is a very poor article with literally no prose whatsoever, but yes, there is a ton of precedent - see Category:European football clubs in international competitions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that there appears to be more of these types of articles, I'll leave it be for now and let someone better versed with football stuff deal with it, if they see fit. Ljleppan (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Tobi Oluwayemi

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I wanted to inform you that I've just opened a discussion for a test page I recently created about this player (not to be confused with his older brother, Josh Oluwayemi).

If you have enough time, as well as experience with football in Scotland and the UK, please leave your suggestions down there: every kind of help is appreciated!

Oltrepier (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Ortizesp (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Oltrepier: I had this old sandbox (User:Govvy/Tobi Oluwayemi) in my user-space if you're interested. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Govvy Oh, thanks for flagging it!
The question is, which version should we keep for the future? Oltrepier (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Oltrepier: If there is nothing you want from my draft then I will just db-author it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Govvy Er, I think I've already included everything I need, to be honest, but thank you for asking! : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Stevenage 2-1 Aston Villa

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I feel that the semi-recent game between Stevenege and Aston Villa might deserve a Wikipedia page. Other FA Cup giant killings have their own Wikipedia pages (Wrexham 2-1 Arsenal and Burnley 0-1 Lincoln City are the big ones in my mind), and multiple places have reported on the game as an upset (The Athletic, Globe and Mail, Sky Sports, Reuters, ESPN, The Guardian, BBC Sports, and technically if you want to count it as ok for sports The Sun). Would it count as notable enough? WikipeidaNeko (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@WikipeidaNeko Sounds good to me!
I don't know if there's any type of criteria for these matches, though, so maybe you could start from a draft, and then we'll wait and see... Oltrepier (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Quick wording check, is it Home-Away or Winner-Loser or something else for how to word the score? WikipeidaNeko (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Follow the article name format at Wrexham A.F.C. 2–1 Arsenal F.C. or Chelsea F.C. 2–4 Bradford City A.F.C. (2015) (unsure why the latter has an unnecessary year disambiguator). GiantSnowman 17:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: the naming of articles on individual matches (which aren't finals or whatever) is absolutely all over the place. Why, for example, does Aston Villa 1–7 Arsenal (14 December 1935) not use the F.C.s (when all other Arsenal matches with articles use them) and use the entire date as a disambiguator? Surely Arsenal didn't win 7–1 at Villa on any other date in 1935 (which would necessitate using the full date to dab) or indeed ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be club full name (i.e. with the 'F.C.') and not with any date unless needed for disambiguation, in which case use the year only. GiantSnowman 17:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOYEAR, I've moved those two pages because there are no other examples of those scores happening between the two teams and it's quite possible those scores never happen again. In the unlikely event that they do, they can be moved to include the year (and year only per WP:NCEVENT) as disambiguation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Please consider WP:NSUSTAINED. Will this match get any significant coverage a year or five years from now? – Elisson • T • C • 17:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
this stuff happens all the time every season. its not like villa are in teh big six either.Muur (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Club years line at Template:Infobox football biography

Latest comment: 1 year ago54 comments12 people in discussion

First of all, please read a below discussion.

Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023?

This discussion seemed to fizzle out without consensus. So I start a new discussion about same issue.

Currently, Instructions for the Infobox at Template:Infobox_football_biography, where it says that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".

In my humble opinion, "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". This provision have many problems.

(1) First, we have to understand the difference between Two consecutive year season system and One year season system.

  • Two consecutive year season system (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season): European Football League and so on
    • Many players retired or transfered in June, July, August in 2022 after they finished 2021-22 season.
  • One year season system (2023 season, 2024 season): Major League Soccer, South Korean K League, Japanese J.League, Chinese Super League and so on.
    • Many players retired or transfered in December in 2021, January and February in 2022 after they finish 2021 season.

I think it is important to draw a clear line between two season system and one season system.

Let's see the career years in Gareth Bale infobox

  • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
  • 2006–2022 Wales 111 (41)

If Bale was retired in January 2023 in the European Football League, Maybe no big misunderstanding. Because he retired in the middle of 2022-2023 season (January 2023 is the part of 2022-2023 season). But Bale was retired in January 2023 after he finished 2022 MLS season and before the start of 2023 MLS season (January 2023 is not the part of MLS 2023 season).

All wikipedia readers are not knowledgeable about football including football league season system.

Therefore current club years at infobox cause three misunderstandings to readers.

Firstly, Bale played for Los Angeles FC both in 2022 season and 2023 season for two years.

Secondly, Major League Soccer season is ongoing in January 2023 like European Football League season.

Thirdly, Bale's last international match was in 2022 and Bale's last club match is in 2023

(2) Bale signed a 1 year contract in June 2022. So Bale was contracted at LAFC until he retired in January 2023. Under current provision, There is no problem.

But We can't know detailed contract years of all football players. Bale is very very famous footballer, So we can find his contract year in press very easily.

But Contract years of many football players are undisclosed in press or even in unknown players case, We don't find any contract information in press.

So We need a common and general provision in club years at infobox.

  • Conclusion

I will say it again, Current club years at European Professional football League with two year season (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season) don't cause big misunderstanding. But club years at Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League and so on with one year season (2022 season, 2023 season) cause misunderstanding.

Many football player career in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League as belows.

For example

- 2005: First contracted with XX FC but didn't appear in the any matches for the XX FC .

- 2006–2010: Appeared in the matches for the XX FC.

- 2011–2022: Originally, contracted with XX FC until 2013. But he transferred to YY FC in January or February in 2011 (After he finished 2010 season in XX FC and before the start of 2011 season) and he appeared in the matches for the only YY FC during 2011–2022

- 2023: still under contract in 2023 or 2024 with YY FC, But he retire or terminate contract in January or February in 2023 (Before the start of 2023 season), then don't find new club.

- 2024: Revese a retirement dicision and contract 1 year with ZZ FC but he don't appear in any matches due to heavy injury.

  • Club years in infobox of this football player
    • 2005–2010: XX FC 150 (5)
    • 2011–2022: YY FC 300 (10)
    • 2024: ZZ FC 0 (0)

Therefore, I hope that We revise provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows in order to convey clear information about various player career cases.

Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club

To put it simply, We synchronize club years in infobox and club years in club career statistics table.

Then, we give a description about detailed contract information including contract year in club career section.

Thanks for reading.Footwiks (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

TLDR version - Gareth Bale announced his retirement in early 2023. Should we display his career end date as 2022 (the last calendar season he played, in MLS) or 2023 (the year he announced his retirement)?
  • 2022 - we don't know when his contract ended, common sense says before his retirement announcement, and it is standard to use the season years only for MLS players. I see no reason why this should be different. GiantSnowman 09:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • 2023 - His playing career was still open in the infobox in January 2023 before he said he was retiring so anyone looking at it then would assume he was still a footballer in 2023 even if he hadn't made an appearance. He was still a footballer until he retired and it would be inconsistent to have 2022 in the infobox but 2023 in prose. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry but how does somebody looking at an article in the past have any impact whatsoever? Any player signing for an English team now from a league which uses calendar years (MLS, Sweden, Ireland etc.) would have had e.g. '2022-' in the infobox for their old club, but it is standard when they leave to change that to '2022' and not '2022-2023', because they left the club before the 2023 season started. This is the exact same principle as Bale's situation. GiantSnowman 10:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • see also Peter Knowles - 'retired' in 1970 but remain contracted with Wolves until 1982, when his contract was terminated. GiantSnowman 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    see also Stefano Bonomo - announced retirement in early 2020, his infobox says 2019. GiantSnowman 10:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    What's your point GS? Sounds like classic WP:OSE. What's the policy - do we write dates based on contract or based on when they last played? --SuperJew (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    I wouldn't use the case of Peter Knowles to support anything, TBH. A player who retired from playing but whose registration was retained by his club (for TWELVE YEARS!!) even though he had absolutely no intention of ever playing again is clearly a freak occurrence and should be treated as such -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    It has always been the last season they played - which means, in Bale's case, 2022. Whether he announced his retirement on 31 December or 1 January does not matter. GiantSnowman 11:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    So Peter Knowles' infobox is wrong then......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I would change his infobox to 1970. GiantSnowman 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    Firstly, it's confusing why you brought Knowles as an example then. Secondly, the guidelines for {{Infobox football biography}} say A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, so that's what we should use, not when they play which is how it's done for national teams (A list of years that the player has played for each national team). --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    If we're going to base the final date in a player's infobox on when he last played for his final club, then heaven only knows how we would treat Robert Green, who didn't play for his final club at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    So when did Bale's contract end - 2022 or 2023? Nobody knows. If any other situation, a player leaving a MLS club in January 2023 would have a 2022 end date. This should be no different. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    the sources say he announced retirement in 2023, so therefore 2023 is the end date. Unless you have another source saying his contract ended in 2022. --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    There are so many similar transfer cases for players in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League
    For example, Originally, contract with XX FC from 2019 until end of 2021, But he transfered to YY FC in January or February 2021 (Before the start of 2021 season and didn't complete player registration in league for 2021 season.)
    Some users fill out the infobox like infobox of players who played for European Football League.
    2019–2021: XX FC
    2021–2023: YY FC
    This club years cause misunderstanding. He played/appeared/capped for XX FC in 2021 season.
    I think that below club years are reasonable.
    2019–2020: XX FC
    2021–2023: YY FC - Footwiks (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Footwiks, respectfully, please stop posting these walls of texts - it's disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this just an attempt to re-prosecute Gareth Bale? As per my comment there: there are no sources saying that he retired / exercised a break clause in December 2022, just that he retired in Jan 2023 (with a contract that still had a year to run). On the Stefano Bonomo comparison : do we know how long he signed for Sacremento for? If his contract was only for a single season then there is a limited similarity, and even allowing for it to be the same, a little-known player who won't have attracted many editors should not set a binding precedence for a world-famous one for whom we have much more sourcing available.Spike 'em (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
he still had a contract in 2023. this isnt a guy being released in december 2022, he retired mid contract. there was a pretty clear consensus in the last discussion imo. we even use contracts for things like ronaldo signing in suadi in 2022 but the contract didnt start till 2023. if that other guy had a contract in 2019 and not 2020 thats why its listed in 2019. the last game played thing is absurd when some players get injured for over a year then retire and so you have to pretend they werent contracted. e.g., a player has a contract till 2023. gets injured and misses all of 2022, retires in 2023. but cuz he didnt play in 2022 or 2023 you go and pretend his career ended in 2021 and he wasnt contracted to anyone in 2022 or 2023. how many goalkeepers sign as a 3rd/4th choice gk at the end of their career and play 0 games? if a gk plays his last game in 2018, then is 4th choice for 5 years playing 0 games do we pretend his career ended in 2018 and pretend the last 5 years didnt happen? the guy brought up Robert Green, do we pretend he was never a chelsea player? also, Stefano Bonomo doesnt seem to have been contracted to that team in 2020, he retired after his contract ended in 2019.Muur (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Muur! You misunderstood what I mean.
There is a clear difference between Situation of Bale and Situation of injured players / third or fourth goalkeepers who will not make any appearances in 2023 season.
  • Bale situation
Bale retired in January 2023 (After the finish of 2022 MLS season and Before the start of the 2023 MLS season)
Therefore Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official player.
Also Bale is not the part of Los Angeles FC 2023 season roaster.
  • Injured players and third or fourth goalkeepers of LAFC situation
Even though they will not make any appearances, They are registered players in 2023 MLS season.
Also they are definitely part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.
Robert Green didn't make an appearance in Chelsea FC. But he was a definitely Chelsea player in 2018–19 season. Because Premier League registered Green as 2018–19 season official player and he was the part of Chelsea F.C. 2018–19 season roaster
Simply speaking, We could find the profile photo of Green at roaster page of Chelsea FC website in 2018 and 2019, but we can't find the profile photo of Bale at roaster page of LAFC website in 2023.
Please read the my conculsion part again.
Of course, I understand that contract years is the important way to judge players club career.
But, in football players club career. There are various situations.
Therefore, It's not reliable to judge a player club career years only by contract year.
I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.
But current Club years line at Template:Infobox football biography
Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
Therefore I want to revise the provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows.
Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club Footwiks (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
“Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club.” Do you seriously think that this geibberish could form the basis for the instructions on a WP template? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
What is your point? Is problem my poor English or my idea?
I repeat, In football players club career. There are various career situations and various season system and we only know the famous players' contract year.
Therefore, It's not reliable to judge a player club career years only by contract year.
I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.
I'm not an native English speaker. my revision draft is poor. But I believe that you can understand my point.
If reach an consensus, I hope that some Egnlish native speaker polilsh and improve below my revision draft.
Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club Footwiks (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
How do we know that he had not cancelled his contract in December 2022 and only announced his retirement in January 2023? GiantSnowman 12:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't know that, so we can't assume it. The only thing (as far as I can see) that we can indisputably reliably source is that he announced his retirement in January. Anything else is just guesswork/OR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
It is possible that Bale's contract was officially terminated by mutual consent in December 2022 but undisclosed then Bale announced retirement in January 2023.
Apart from Bale's situation, We can know few famous footballer's detailed contract years. Most footballer's contract years are undisclosed.
Therefore I hope that we judge a player club career years by various viewpoints including contract year, appearances, league's player registration and club's roaster registration and so on.Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
It's possible that an alien told Bale that if he didn't retire then the earth would be blown up with a laser beam, but I don't have a source for that so I can't include it in the article. The sources we do have say that Bale announced his immediate retirement on 9 January 2023. In my experience, clubs announce how long a player has signed for or when they sign a new contract all the time. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
We go by what sources tell us. We have sources that he had a contract spanning into 2023 and sources that he announced his retirement in January 2023. Anything else is speculation. Spike 'em (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
And his statement on 9 Jan said I announce my immediate retirement from ... football which would time it to the point the statement was made. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, fair - in which case 2023 is probably the right end date for Bale given his special circumstances. GiantSnowman 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This started as a discussion about proposed changes to the Template:Infobox football biography but is degenerating into a discussion about Gareth Bale's retirement. Can editors try to keep on topic. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, that was because the OP was posting about Bale the entire time... GiantSnowman 15:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you on this point: OP mentions Bale 9 times in his initial statement and another 10 times thereafter having posted something similar on the already archived thread. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Op just seemed mad the previous discussion had everyone say bale for 2023 and then brought it back up hoping it'd end different this time and it didn't. Muur (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I told them to start a new discussion. In fairness, the outcome is different to the previous one, but not in the way OP hoped - we now have consensus that Bale's career ends in 2023 in the infobox (the last discussion there was no such consensus). GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, Bale's career ends in 2022 or 2023. It's not so important to me. The reason for opening a this discusstion in order to revise a provision of Template:Infobox football biography as belows.
I'm South Korean. I have edited many South Korean K League player articles since 2010. K League and MLS have same season system (2022 season, 2023 season)
There are many similar situations like Bale's situation about retirement or transfers in K League players.
For example, Some player like Bale, Originally contracted with XX FC from 2021 until end of 2022, But he transfered to YY FC in January 2022.
Of course, some player was still contracted at XX FC in January 2022, But he left the club before the start of 2022 season.
Therefore, K League registered him as YY FC player in 2022 K League season and he was also the part 2022 YY FC seasons roaster.
But many foreign wikipedia users edited his club years as belows.
(Sample-1)
2021–2022: XX FC
2022–  : YY FC
This club years cause misunderstanding to readers. He played or appeared for XX FC in 2022 season and K League was ongoing in January 2022.
Additionally, In South Korea. Definitely, This players's club years considered and edited in South Korean wikipedia article as belows.
(Sample-2)
2021  : XX FC
2022–  : YY FC
Many wikipedia users still don't know K League season system, League's player registration system and Club's roaster registration system.
They will edited (Sample-1) like club years of footballers who play in European Football League season (2021-2022 season, 2022-2023 season) and there is a potential edit dispute.
Therefore, I want to revise a provision of Template:Infobox football biography in detail.
But most participants of dicsussion only focused on Bale's career ends in 2022 or 2023. Footwiks (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a question and suggestion.

(1) Question

I repeat, Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official MLS player. Also Bale is not the part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.

But Do we have to add 2023 lines with all 0 stats in his career statistics table like club years of infobox?

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition
Club Season League National Cup League Cup Continental Other Total
Division Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals
Los Angeles FC 2022 MLS 12 2 — — — 1 1 13 3
2023 0 0 — — — 0 0 0 0
Career total 394 141 32 7 15 3 98 27 14 7 553 185

(2) Suggestion

How about adding months in club years in all players infobox as belows?

2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

=>

06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2) or June 2022–January 2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

(Date format, Anything is fine for me)

Let's compare the Bale's club years and some player's club years

  • Bale: 06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
  • Some player: 01/2022–12/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

Club years including months in infobox can convey intuitive information and prevent misuderstanding to readers.

That is to say,

  • Bale: 06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

=> We can easily realize that Bale joined the LAFC in the middle of 2022 season and Bale left the LAFC before the opening of 2023 season.

  • Some player: 01/2022–12/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

=> We can easily realize that some player spent full two seasons for LAFC.

But in current infobox Club years of Bale and some player are same as belows

  • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

Therefore, Readers have to find a detailed club years information in their club career section. First, this cause inconvenience and generally famous footballers article have detailed club career section including contract years. So if readers can't find detailed club years information, especailly unknown footballers, This can cause misunderstanding about club years.

I checked out Bale articles at other language wikipedias.

  • Most other wikipedia infobox: 2022 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
  • A few other wikipedia infobox: 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)

There is a just difference of view on the players club career.

  • 2022 Los Angeles FC 12 (2): viewpoint of substance over form (Actual player registration or roaster registraion for the LAFC in 2023 season)
  • 2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2): viewpoint of form over substance (Just contract years with LAFC)

They can both be right.

In conculsion, In my humble opinion, Club period including month information in infobox become a good compromise. Footwiks (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The hell is all this? I support changing it to 2022 as per Snowman. We're not putting months in infoboxes.--EchetusXe 14:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree, no months. And so much text... Kante4 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I also support putting 2022 only. The fact is there were no matches, the league was not operating, heck pre-season had not even started yet. At no point was LAFC engaged in any football activities at the time. RedPatch (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
100% support not putting months in infoboxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I also support not putting months in infoboxes, but I think Bale's LAFC spell should be shown as 2022–2023, since he retired in 2023. – PeeJay 17:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Definitely no months in infoboxes! GiantSnowman 18:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I would rather have Bale's spell ending in 2022 than add months! Spike 'em (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What seems to have been forgotten here once again is that this is meant to be a discussion about the instructions for football player infoboxes, not about Gareth Bale. At present, the instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". As far as Gareth Bales is concerned, it appears that he was under contact until he announced his retirement in January 2023, unless someone can provide a source showing that his actual retirement fell in 2022. That being so, there is no point in discussing Bale further until the main point is resolved.

The main point of this discussion should be about a possible change to the infobox instructions. The OP has made various proposals, most of which, such as showing months in the infobox, are unworkable. It seems to me that, if this discussion is to continue, it should be on the infobox talk page, where contributors can stay focussed on the subject at hand,and leave any discussion about Bale to another day. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the topic for this dicussion.
Please read from below sentence
Honestly, Bale's club years: 2022 or 2022–2023. It doesn't matter so much.
Because Bale is very very famous footballer. There are so many press about Bale's retirement.
So We can easily realize that Bale left LAFC in 2023 but Bale is not the part of 2023 LAFC roaster and didn't make any appearances in 2023 MLS season
But We can't find detailed contract information and transfer information of most footballers in press.
Club years: 2022–2023
In Bale's situation: Many readers don't misunderstood
In Unknown player's situation: Many readers can misunderstand that this player make an appearance in 2023 season or official registered player in 2023 season.

There are so many similar retirement or transfer situations like Bale's situation, So I want to find a fundamental solution to revise instructions of current club years of footballer player.

To return, In Football Player Infobox, Instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
Current instruction have two problems.
(1) Not fit for footballers who play for in the league with one year season (MLS, K League, J. League and so on)
Let's compare below two situations.
  • If A player retired or transfered in June 2022 in Premier League
=> A player career years:
2020–2022 XX FC
2022–2024 YY FC
Although A player retired or transfered in off-season (Before the start of 2022–2023 season),
There is no dispute about it. Because Year 2022 is used in both 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season.
  • If B player retired or transfered in Jauary 2023 in MLS
=> B player career years
2020–2022 XX FC
2023–2024 YY FC
or
2020–2023 XX FC
2023–2024 YY FC
Although B player retired or transfered in same off-season (Before the start of 2023 season),
Like Bale's situation. That raises the possibility of dispute.
Because January 2023 is still the period of his contract years but the league was not operating at that time and he will register as YY FC player in 2023 MLS season and will be part of 2023 season YY FC roaster.

Additionally, So many players who play for in the league with one year season retire or transfer in January or February.

(2) We can't distinguish actual club years (Especially footballers who play for in the league with one year seaosn)
  • A player contract: From June 2022 to January 2023 in XX FC
=> A player played for just five months of 2022 season and left the club before the start of 2023 season.
  • B player: From January 2022 to December 2023 in XX FC
=> B player played for full two seasons
But under current player infobox,
A and B player's club years are same as belows
2022–2023 XX FC
I think that this is vague inforamtion and cause misunderstanding to readers.


I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a solution since 2010, In my humble opinion.
This seems to be best solution.
Solution
Let's split instruction of club years infobox in two ways.
  • (1) Club years of footballers who play for in the league with two consecutive year season (Premier League, Serie A and so on)
Keep current instruction
=> Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
  • (2) Club years of footballers who play for in the league with one year season (MLS, K League and so on)
Create new instruction.
=> I can't make a perfect sentence due to my poor English. Point is as belows.
League Player Registration or Club Roaster Registration of at that season takes precedence over contract years.
Footwiks (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but this wall of text is not helpful Too long; didn't read. Make it shorter. Kante4 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Please ignore my former comment. I marked Please read from below sentence.Footwiks (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If you keep editing / removing text from your comments then nobody will be able to follow what you are saying. As it stands there are 3 or 4 walls of text that no-one has any interest in trawling through. Spike 'em (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Footwiks: Not even close to being better. It's a massive wall of text and i (like maybe more) won't be bother to read that all. Kante4 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Finally, I summarized my opinion about this topic in last comment with mark (Please read from below sentence). I mean, In order to save time, My last comment with mark is enough for new discussion participants or participants who don't want to read my all comments thoroughly. Footwiks (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Footwiks, please stop posting if you cannot do so concisely. Multiple editors have raised concerns about your walls of text and your continued posts are disruptive, and you will be blocked to stop future disruption, OK? GiantSnowman 17:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. This is ridiculous. – PeeJay 18:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Originally, I opened a this discussion in order to solve fundamental problems of player Infobox template. This is a complicated issue. So I was forced to post long comment including comparison of club career years under One year season system and Two year consecutive season system in order to understand problem logically.
But It seems that most participants in this discussion are only interested in Bale's career 2022 or 2023 and are not interested in fundamental problems of player Infobox template. I think that this cause disruption in this discussion.
I am a hardest working participants in this discussion. If just long comment again, Block me?
I don't understand this situation. Anyway, There is my final summarized opinion and point in last comment and maybe there is no further comment.Footwiks (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

S.S.C. Napoli Youth Sector

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good afternoon, everyone!

While editing here and there, I've run into this page and found out about the atrocious state it finds itself in: from the lack of citations, to poor writing and not updated rosters, the whole article is definitely in dire straits as of now.

I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on it directly in the next few days, so I wanted to ask for some much needed help (including from the likes of @Dr Salvus and @Nehme1499, if they can), please...

I think this section from the club's article on it.wiki could be a great place to start, in order to get some useful sources and organize the page properly.

Let me know if you can help me!

Oltrepier (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of FC Barcelona

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

History of FC Barcelona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion

A new user is vehemently arguing that Transfermarkt is a reliable source and also confers notability and is edit warring it back into articles. Disruptive behaviour aside, given that the discussion about Transfermarkt was almost a decade ago, do we need to revise our community stance? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of its reliability, I can't see how having an entry on what amounts to a colossal stats database could ever confer notability.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, why did the other editor edit a 10-year-old archive of the RSN (where almost nobody will see it) rather than start a new discussion? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
No idea. I've added a new discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Transfermarkt on the off-chance that the new editor has a valid point. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(e/c) I believe that the only unreliable part of Transfermarkt are their (subjective) valuations of players. Other than that, their database and news reports seem reliable. It would be a waste of arguably football's largest online database to just call the whole thing unreliable on the basis of their valuations. Nehme1499 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that Transfermarkt is a bit like IMDb in that it's user-generated and anyone can edit it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. It's a fine starting point, but it shouldn't be used as a direct source for anything on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I wish they had a log of references like Wikipedia. There's information there that can't be sourced elsewhere, even though you get the feeling they are right. Ortizesp (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I created this shortcut ages ago, WP:WPFLINKSNO, did want to expand on the bottom of that section. Unless it's put to a whole new page. But ye, there is a whole load of reasons for transfermarkt. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Live Updates

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think I have ever seen this before when a user has been going through player's articles and updates their appearance count by one when the matches has not even started yet. This person had ran through the entire Manchester United v Crystal Palace starting 22, possibly from this lineup and has started doing the same to Wolves v Liverpool players. The warnings GS and myself had put on there today are presumably ignored. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

He continued but all of his edits were reverted. Messaged him aswell but i don't think an answer will come. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Still ongoing, now with Brighton players. Clearly ignoring us. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
If you’re going to comment on a specific editor’s conduct, can you please link to their profile so we can easily check on the edits? Thanks. – PeeJay 17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@PeeJay: It was Chahil (talk · contribs), but banned now, but yeah, i needed to look it up at first too, a link would have been helpful from the start. Kante4 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree, next time if something like this or a different recurring issue arises elsewhere, I shall do that PeeJay. I also agree that would be helpful, with that user page link, we would have had saved a bit of time. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
they've been blocked for 1 month. GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate National League article?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've just come across 2022–23 National League South which appears to be a WP:DUPLICATE of 2022–23 National League as I always assumed that we always had the National League leagues (NL, North and South) together as one article. Can someone more versed with non-league have a look at this and see if it needs a merge/redirect please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just needs a redirect. Silly duplicate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought so. Just made the redirect now. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I pointed this out months ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force#Articles for specific season/division combinations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
That would have been an advantageous time for you to have made the redirect a reality. Seasider53 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Pinging article creator @Joseph1891: for future reference - we do NOT have separate National League/North/South season articles, all in one please. GiantSnowman 17:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_158&oldid=1139046956"